Castro v. Johnson & Johnson (2021)

Our plain-English summary of Castro v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, May 28, 2021).

John Castro and his wife Joyce sued Johnson & Johnson and related companies, along with Revlon, in a products liability case filed in New York state court in 2019. They alleged he developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos in contaminated talc products he used. The case was in federal court in Western New York and was handled by magistrate judges. Earlier, the court granted Revlon summary judgment because the Castros' claims were filed too late. The Johnson & Johnson defendants then moved for summary judgment on the same time-bar ground. The Castros filed no opposition. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, and no party objected. The district judge reviewed the recommendation, noting the law does not require a full review when no objections are made, and adopted it. The court granted the Johnson & Johnson defendants' motion and sent the case back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. The opinion does not describe the work, dates or facts of the exposure.

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: May 28, 2021
• Docket: No. 19-CV-279 (JLS)
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: New York

Outcome. 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.

What the court held. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation without de novo review because no party objected, and granted summary judgment on the ground that the claims were time-barred.

Issues decided: Statute of Limitations, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• John Castro: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Johnson & Johnson (manufacturer)
• Johnson & Consumer, Inc. (manufacturer)
• Johnson & Johnson Health and Wellness Solutions Inc. (manufacturer)
• Revlon Holdings, 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. Colgate-Palmolive Company (July 29, 2020). 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.

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.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, etal., Defendants.

No. 19-CV-279 (JLS).

May 28, 2021.

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 alleging that John Castro was diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos from his use of asbestos-contaminated talc products.[1] See Dkt. 1-2, Exh. A. 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).[2] Dkt. 71. This Court previously accepted and adopted three R&Rs (Dkts. 90, 96, 132) in this case. See Dkts. 95, 97, 135. The most recent R&R—issued by Judge Roemer on April 6, 2021—recommended granting Defendant Revlon Holdings, Inc.'s

("Revlon") motion for summary judgment on the basis of the Castros' claims being time-barred. See generally Dkt. 132. This Court accepted and adopted Judge Roemer's recommendations on April 30, 2021. Dkt. 135.

On April 9, 2021, Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Consumer, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health and Wellness Solutions Inc. (the "J&J Defendants") moved for summary judgment, arguing, as Revlon did, that the Castros' claims are time-barred. Dkt. 133-2, at 6-11. The Castros did not file any opposition to J&J's motions.

On May 10, 2021, Judge Roemer issued an R&R, recommending that the J&J Defendants' motion for summary judgment

be granted. Dkt. 132. 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 Roemer's

recommendation to grant the J&J Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the J&J Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 133) is GRANTED. The case is referred back to Judge Roemer for further proceedings consistent with the referral order of January 27, 2020 (Dkt. 71).

SO ORDERED.

[1] This Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the background and facts of this case, outlined in the R&Rs (Dkts. 90, 96, 132, 136) and this Court's prior Decision and Orders dated June 2, 2020, July 29, 2020, and April 30, 2021 (Dkts. 95, 97, 135), and does not repeat them here.

[2] This case was originally assigned to the Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford before being reassigned to the Hon. John L. Sinatra, Jr. on January 3, 2020. Dkt. 70. Judge Sinatra referred the case for all pretrial matters to Judge Scott, but the referral was subsequently transferred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer. Dkt. 128.

Sources

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