Mitchell v. Johnson & Johnson (2019)

Our plain-English summary of Mitchell v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, June 12, 2019).

Maureen Mitchell sued Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. in Massachusetts Superior Court, claiming that her use of their talc products caused asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma. Her complaint also named Imerys Talc America, which supplies talc to Johnson & Johnson. After Imerys and two affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware, Johnson & Johnson removed the case to federal court, arguing it was related to the bankruptcy because of alleged indemnity agreements and shared insurance. Mitchell asked for the case to be sent back to state court. The judge found that Johnson & Johnson had a colorable claim of a connection to the bankruptcy, so subject-matter jurisdiction appeared to exist. But federal law lets the court remand on any equitable ground. Following reasoning from another judge in a related case, and noting that three other judges in the district had remanded similar cases, the court granted the motion and returned the case to state court. It took no position on whether a later removal might be proper if the Delaware proceeding changed.

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, District of Massachusetts
• Decided: June 12, 2019
• Docket: Civil Action No. 19-10762-FDS
• Stage: Jurisdiction, venue or removal
• State: Massachusetts

Outcome. The district court granted Maureen Mitchell's motion and remanded the case to Massachusetts Superior Court on equitable grounds, over Johnson & Johnson's removal based on the Imerys bankruptcy.

What the court held. Even where a case is colorably "related to" a bankruptcy proceeding, a court may remand it under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) "on any equitable ground."

Issues decided: Asbestos Bankruptcies, Venue, Removal and Transfer.

The people and their exposure

• Maureen Mitchell: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Johnson & Johnson (manufacturer)
• Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (manufacturer)
• Imerys Talc America, Inc. (supplier)

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.

MAUREEN MITCHELL, Plaintiff,

v.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 19-10762-FDS.

June 12, 2019.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Maureen Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie-Anne Taylor, Thornton Law Firm LLP, Andrea Marino Landry, Thornton Law Firm LLP & David Bricker, Thornton Law Firm.

Johnson & Johnson & Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Defendants, represented by Daniel P. McCarthy, Manning Gross Massenburg LLP, Robert M. Swenson, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Marisa K. Pearson, Manning Gross Massenburg LLP.

ORDER OF REMAND

F. DENNIS SAYLOR, IV, District Judge.

Plaintiff Maureen Mitchell has filed a motion to remand this action to the Massachusetts Superior Court. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

On December 27, 2018, Mitchell filed this action against defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., contending that her use of Johnson & Johnson's talc products had caused her to develop asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma.

The complaint also names Imerys Talc America, Inc. as a defendant. Imerys supplies talc to Johnson & Johnson. On February 13, 2019, Imerys and two affiliates filed a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. On April 18, 2019, Johnson & Johnson removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 1452(a), contending that the case was "related to" the bankruptcy proceeding based on the alleged existence of indemnity agreement(s) and shared insurance.

On April 18, 2019, Johnson & Johnson filed a motion in the District of Delaware seeking to transfer approximately 2400 cases, including this one, to that forum. The same day, Johnson & Johnson removed this case to this court. Plaintiff now seeks an order of remand on a variety of grounds, including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Johnson & Johnson has presented a colorable claim that this case is "related to" the bankruptcy proceeding and therefore there appears to be subject-matter jurisdiction. However, under § 1452(a), the court to which the case is removed may remand the case "on any equitable ground." Under the circumstances here, and for the reasons set forth by Judge Sorokin in a related action, remand on equitable grounds appears to be appropriate. See Mem. & Order at 5, Rivera, 19-10747-LTS (D. Mass. May 31, 2019). Judges Stearns, Sorokin, and Burroughs of this district have recently remanded related cases pending in this district presenting essentially the same issue. See Wilson v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 19-cv-10764-RGS; Rivera v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 19-cv-10747-LTS; O'Riorden v. Johnson & Johnson, 19-10751-ADB.

Accordingly, the motion is granted and the matter is remanded to the Massachusetts Superior Court. The Court expresses no view as to whether a further removal petition may be appropriate if subsequent developments in the Delaware proceeding change the underlying factual or legal posture of the case. See One Sylvan Road North Associates v. Lark Intern., Ltd., 889 F. Supp. 60, 62 (D. Conn. 1995) (noting that a second removal is appropriate if "subsequent pleadings or events reveal a new and different ground for removal.").

So Ordered.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Massachusetts asbestos laws
• Massachusetts asbestos exposure sites