Castro v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (W.D.N.Y., July 29, 2020)

Our plain-English summary of Castro v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, July 29, 2020).

John Castro and his wife Joyce sued several companies, including CVS Pharmacy, in New York state court in 2019. They alleged that Mr. Castro developed mesothelioma from using talc products contaminated with asbestos. Johnson & Johnson entities removed the case to federal court, where it was referred to a magistrate judge. After an earlier ruling denying remand, the magistrate judge issued a report on CVS's motion to dismiss or transfer, the Castros' request to amend their complaint, and CVS's second motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Castros then agreed to dismiss all claims against CVS without prejudice, and the court approved that stipulation. The magistrate judge recommended denying all three motions because CVS was no longer in the case. No party objected. The district judge reviewed the recommendation, adopted it, and denied the three motions. The case went back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of New York
• Decided: July 29, 2020
• Docket: No. 19-CV-279 (JLS)
• Stage: Motion to dismiss
• State: New York

Outcome. The court adopted the magistrate judge's unopposed recommendation and denied CVS Pharmacy's motions to dismiss or transfer and for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Castros' cross-motion to amend, all as moot after the Castros stipulated to dismiss CVS without prejudice.

What the court held. A district court need not review a magistrate judge's recommendation de novo when no party objects, and may adopt it.

Issues decided: Personal Jurisdiction, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• John Castro: mesothelioma

The defendants

• CVS Pharmacy (supplier)
• Colgate-Palmolive Company (manufacturer)
• Johnson & Johnson (manufacturer)
• Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (manufacturer)
• Johnson & Johnson Health and Wellness Solutions, Inc. (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Castro v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (April 29, 2020). The magistrate judge recommended denying John and Joyce Castro's motion to remand to state court, so Johnson & Johnson's snap removal stands.
• Castro v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (July 13, 2020). The magistrate judge recommended denying as moot all three pending motions (CVS Pharmacy's two motions to dismiss or transfer and the Castros' cross-motion for leave to amend) because the Castros had dismissed CVS without prejudice, leaving the scheduling order in place.
• Castro v. Johnson & Johnson (May 28, 2021). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's unopposed recommendation and granted summary judgment to the Johnson & Johnson defendants, ruling against John and Joyce Castro, whose claims were time-barred.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

JOHN CASTRO and JOYCE CASTRO, Plaintiffs,

v.

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, etal., Defendants.

No. 19-CV-279 (JLS).

July 29, 2020.

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

DECISION AND ORDER

JOHN L. SINATRA, JR., District Judge.

On February 28, 2019, Plaintiffs John Castro and Joyce Castro commenced this products liability action in state court against Defendants, including CVS Pharmacy ("CVS"), alleging that John Castro was diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos from his use of asbestos-contaminated talc products. See Dkt. 1-2, Exh. A. On March 1, 2019, Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health and Wellness Solutions, Inc. removed the case to this Court. Dkt. 1. On January 27, 2020, this Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Dkt. 71. On June 2, 2020, this Court accepted and adopted a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending denial of the Castros' motion to remand (Dkt. 15). Dkt. 95.

Judge Scott issued a subsequent R&R on July 13, 2020. Dkt. 96. This R&R addresses Defendant CVS Pharmacy's motion to dismiss or transfer (Dkt. 45); the Castros' cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint (Dkt. 63); and CVS's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Dkt. 87). In response to CVS's second motion to dismiss (Dkt. 87), the Castros stipulated to dismiss all claims against CVS without prejudice. Dkt. 93. The Court endorsed this stipulation on May 12, 2020. Dkt. 94. The R&R, in light of this stipulation ending CVS's involvement in this case, recommended denying all three pending motions. Dkt. 96, at 2-3.

The parties did not object to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

Based on this Court's review and the absence of any objections, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Scott's recommendation to deny the three pending motions.

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, CVS's motion to dismiss or transfer (Dkt. 45) is DENIED; the Castros' cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint (Dkt. 63) is DENIED: and CVS's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Dkt. 87) is DENIED. The case is referred back to Judge Scott for further proceedings consistent with the referral order of January 27, 2020, Dkt. 71.

SO ORDERED.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• New York asbestos laws
• New York asbestos exposure sites