Crozier v. Johnson & Johnson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2018)

Our plain-English summary of In re New York City Asbestos Litigation (New York Supreme Court, July 31, 2018).

Beverly Crozier, a Texas citizen, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2016. She and her husband sued in New York County, alleging she was exposed to asbestos in Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, which she used from the mid-1950s through the late 1960s. Her mother used the baby powder on her as a baby, and she later applied Shower to Shower to herself as a teenager. She lived and worked in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas and never had contact with New York. Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (JJCI), both New Jersey companies, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion. It found no general jurisdiction because neither company was incorporated or headquartered in New York. It found no specific jurisdiction because the exposures and injury occurred in Texas and Oklahoma, and the products were bought there. It also denied jurisdictional discovery and dismissed the claims and cross-claims against both companies without reaching forum non conveniens.

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: New York Supreme Court
• Decided: July 31, 2018
• Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 31801
• Docket: Docket No. 190385/2016, Motion Seq. No. 001
• Stage: Jurisdiction, venue or removal
• Unpublished opinion. Many courts limit citing unpublished opinions as precedent.
• State: New York

Outcome. The trial court granted Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Croziers' complaint and cross-claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, and denied jurisdictional discovery.

What the court held. New York courts lacked general jurisdiction over corporations not incorporated or headquartered in New York, and lacked specific jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a) where the plaintiff's exposure and injury occurred entirely outside New York.

Issues decided: Personal Jurisdiction.

The people and their exposure

• Beverly Crozier: mesothelioma

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Beverly Crozier	consumer using baby powder and body powder	Texas	mid-1950s through the late 1960s	talc and vermiculite, Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder; Shower to Shower (Johnson & Johnson / JJCI)

The defendants

• Johnson & Johnson
• Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (manufacturer)
• Avon Products, Inc.

Other decisions in this case

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

• Matter of Crozier v. Avon Prods., Inc. (August 2, 2018). The trial court denied the motion by Imerys Talc America and Cyprus Amax Minerals to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or forum non conveniens, so the Croziers' claims against them go forward in New York.

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.

2018 NY Slip Op 31801(U)

IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION.

BEVERLY CROZIER and DONALD CROZIER, Plaintiffs,

v.

AVON PRODUCTS, INC., etal., Defendants.

Docket No. 190385/2016, Motion Seq. No. 001.

Motion June 20, 2018.

July 31, 2018.

Supreme Court, New York County.

MANUEL J. MENDEZ, Judge.

It is Ordered that Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.'s ("JJCI") motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint") and all Cross-Claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(8), is granted.

Plaintiff Beverly Crozier, a citizen of Texas, was diagnosed with mesothelioma on April 6, 2016 (Opposition Papers Ex. 3). Plaintiffs allege Mrs. Crozier was exposed to asbestos in a variety of ways. Plaintiffs allege exposure to Johnson & Johnson's asbestos-containing Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products when using them from the mid-1950s through the late 1960s three times a week (Id at Ex. 1). Mrs. Crozier testified that her mother would use Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder on her when she was a baby, and then as a teenager, Mrs. Crozier would apply Shower to Shower on herself all over her body (Id. at Ex. 3). Mrs. Crozier has never had any contact with New York. She has lived and worked in various towns and cities in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas (Moving Papers Ex. B). The Plaintiffs commenced this action on December 23, 2016 to recover for injuries resulting from Mrs. Crozier's exposure to asbestos.

Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey holding company with its principal place of business in New Jersey (Affidavit of Tina French). Johnson & Johnson does not sell or manufacture any products (Id.). JJCI is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and is a New Jersey Corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey (Affidavit of Laura A. Donnelly). JJCI manufactured and distributed Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products during the subject time period. JJCI does not own any property in New York (Id). JJCI does not manufacture, research, develop, design, or test Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder or Shower to Shower products in New York (Id).

Johnson & Johnson and JJCI (hereinafter the "J&J Entities") move to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and all Cross-Claims against them pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(8) and CPLR § 327(a). The J&J Entities contend that this court does not have personal jurisdiction over them because Mrs. Crozier's exposures occurred outside of the State of New York, Mrs. Crozier did not reside in the State of New York, Johnson & Johnson and JJCI are not incorporated in New York and do not maintain their principal places of business here, and therefore, there is no general jurisdiction. Furthermore, the J&J Entities contend that Plaintiffs' claims do not arise from any of the J&J Entities New York transactions, and that the J&J Entities did not commit a tortious act within the State of New York or without the state of New York that caused an injury to person or property within the State of New York, and therefore, there is no specific jurisdiction (CPLR § 302[a][1], [2] and [3]). Finally, the J&J Entities contend that if this court finds that it can exert personal jurisdiction over them, this action should be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens.

Plaintiffs oppose the motion contending that this court does have personal general jurisdiction and long-arm jurisdiction over the J&J Entities and that this court should deny the J&J Entities attempt to dismiss this action on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The Plaintiffs further contend that if personal jurisdiction over the J&J Entities cannot be established at this time, the motion should be denied to allow for jurisdictional discovery as they have made a "sufficient start." "On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211, [the court] must accept as true the facts as alleged in the complaint and submissions in opposition to the motion, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible inference and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Sokoloff v Harriman Estates Dev. Corp., 96 NY2d 409, 729 NYS2d 425, 754 NE2d 184 [2001]). A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(8) applies to lack of jurisdiction over

the defendant. Jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary is governed by New York's general jurisdiction statute § 301, and long-arm statute § 302(a).

The plaintiff bears the burden of proof when seeking to assert jurisdiction (Lamarr v Klein, 35 AD2d 248, 315 NYS2d 695 [1st Dep. 1970]). However, in opposing a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff needs only to make a sufficient start by showing that its position is not frivolous (Peterson v Spartan Indus., Inc., 33 NY2d 463, 354 NYS2d 905, 310 NE2d 513 [1974]). General Jurisdiction:

"General Jurisdiction permits a court to adjudicate any cause of action against the defendant, wherever arising, and whoever the plaintiff" (Lebron v Encarnacion, 253 F.Supp3d 513 [EDNY 2017]). To demonstrate jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR § 301, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's "affiliations with [New York] are so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in" New York (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 [2011]; Daimler AG v Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 [2014], Magdalena v Lins, 123 AD3d 600, 999 NYS2d 44 [1st Dept. 2014]). "For a corporation the paradigm forum for general jurisdiction, that is the place where the corporation is at home, is the place of incorporation and the principal place of business" (Daimler AG, supra). Absent "exceptional circumstances" a corporation is at home where it is incorporated or where it has its principal place of business (Id). This court cannot exercise general personal jurisdiction over Johnson & Johnson because it is not incorporated, nor does it have its principal place of business in the State of New York. Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in the State of New Jersey. Plaintiffs' contention that Johnson & Johnson subjected itself to general jurisdiction because of several isolated events that Johnson & Johnson was involved in (including industry meetings that Johnson & Johnson employees attended in the 1970s, four (4) letters sent from Johnson & Johnson representatives to New York-based scientists, and two statements made to the New York Times) [Opposition Memorandum of Law; Exs. 22-38] is unavailing since only "continuous and systematic" contacts can establish general personal jurisdiction (Daimler AG, supra). Furthermore, the Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" for this Court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over Johnson & Johnson.

Likewise, this court is also not able to exercise general personal jurisdiction over JJCI because it is not incorporated, nor does it have its principal place of business in the State of New York. JJCI is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in the State of New Jersey. The Plaintiffs do not allege or present evidence of any New York contacts on behalf of JJCI to demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" for this court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over JJCI. Specific Jurisdiction:

"For the court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant the suit must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum. Specific Jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction. When no such connection exists specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant's unconnected activities in the State. What is needed is a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue" (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v Superior Court of California, San Francisco, 136 S.Ct. 1773 [2017]). "It is the defendant's conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum state that is the basis for its jurisdiction over it. The mere fact that this conduct affects a plaintiff with connections with a foreign state does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction" (Id.; Walden v Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 [2014]).

With CPLR § 302(a)'s long-arm statute, courts may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident when it: "(1) transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state; or (2) commits a tortious act within the state, . . .; or (3) commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state, . . ., if he (i) regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the state, or (ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce; or (4) owns, uses or possesses any real property situated within the state" (CPLR § 302[a]).

This court cannot exercise specific personal jurisdiction under CPLR § 302(a)(1) because there is no articulable nexus or substantial relationship between the J&J Entities' New York conduct and the claims asserted. This section of the statute is triggered when a defendant transacts business in New York and the cause of action asserted arises from that activity. The

record before this Court establishes that the injuries asserted by the Plaintiffs did not arise from any of Johnson & Johnson's activity within the State of New York. Plaintiffs assertion that JJCI maintained domestic operations in New York including a facility for dental products is unavailing as this conduct does not have an articulable nexus or substantial relationship to Plaintiffs' claims. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs admitted that the product at issue was purchased in Texas and Oklahoma. This court cannot exercise personal specific jurisdiction under CPLR § 302(a)(2) because the J&J Entities have not committed a tortious act within the state of New York. All of the alleged exposures to JJCI's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower occurred in the States of Texas and Oklahoma. Exercise of specific jurisdiction under this section requires a defendant to be physically present in New York.

"CPLR § 302(a)(3) which allows for jurisdiction over an out of state defendant who causes personal injury in New York by committing a tortious act elsewhere if it reasonably expects its act to have consequences in this state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce, was adopted for the purpose of broadening New York's long-arm jurisdiction so as to include non-residents who cause tortious injury in the state by an act or omission outside the state. . . . The amendment was not intended to burden unfairly non-residents whose connection with the State is remote and who could not reasonably be expected to foresee that their acts outside of New York could have harmful consequences in New York" (Lebron, supra).

More is required than just an injury in New York. The plaintiff must establish that the defendant either "(i) regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed, or services rendered, or (ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce" (CPLR § 302[a][3]).

This court cannot exercise personal specific jurisdiction under CPLR § 302(a)(3) because the injury did not occur in the State of New York. Mrs. Crozier was never exposed to JJCI's products in New York, but rather exposed in Texas or Oklahoma meaning those states are potentially the situs of the injury. Since the exposure and the injury the original event took place outside of the State of New York, Mrs. Crozier is not and has never been a resident of the State of New York, the New York courts cannot exercise jurisdiction (Bristol-Myers Squibb, supra; Lebron, supra).

Plaintiffs fail to make a "sufficient start" for this court to grant jurisdictional discovery. Regarding specific jurisdiction, the relevant question is whether there is any "connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue" (Bristol-Myers Squibb, supra). Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate "that discovery would uncover facts establishing" jurisdiction (Hardwick v Auriemma, 116 AD3d 465, 983 NYS2d 509 [1st Dept. 2014]). The J&J Entities are not "at home" in New York, and Mrs. Crozier did not purchase or use any product manufactured by JJCI in New York.

Since this court is unable to exercise personal jurisdiction over the J&J Entities, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint must be dismissed without the necessity to analyze whether the Amended Complaint should have been dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.'s motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and all Cross-Claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(8), is granted, and it is further,

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and all Cross-Claims against Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are severed and dismissed, and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. serve a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry on the Trial Support Clerk located in the General Clerk's Office (Room 119) and on the County Clerk, by e-filing protocol, and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.

Sources

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