ESTATE OF TAMARA M DARROW v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: January 16, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00324
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 ESTATE OF TAMARA M. DARROW, on Case No. 2:23-CV-01996-RSM 10 behalf of the deceased and all statutory 11 beneficiaries by and through its personal ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY representative JOHN DARROW; JOHN ALL PROCEEDINGS 12 DARROW AND JULIA DARROW, both 13 individually as parents of the deceased,

14 Plaintiffs,

15 v. 16 JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey 17 corporation, KENVUE, INC., a Delaware corporation, JOHNSON & JOHNSON 18 CONSUMER, INC., a New Jersey 19 corporation, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., 20 Defendants. 21

22 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay All Proceedings. Dkt. 23 #5. Defendants collectively request the Court stay all proceedings in this action pending the 24 likely establishment of In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Marketing, Sales Practices and 25 Products Liability Litigation, which would transfer this case for coordinated pretrial proceedings. 26 27 Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff did not respond to this Motion. To avoid waste of judicial resources, 28 inconsistent rulings, and duplicative practices unfairly prejudicial to the parties, Defendants’ 1 2 Motion to Stay is GRANTED. 3 Plaintiffs allege that Decedent Tamara M. Darrow developed ovarian cancer and died 4 from using talcum powder products produced by Defendants. Dkt. #1-1 at 10. This is one of 5 more than thirty pending lawsuits brought by Defendants’ consumers with similar allegations. 6 On October 4, 2016, the U.S Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“the Panel”) issued a 7 8 Transfer Order to the U.S. District Court of New Jersey to coordinate pretrial proceedings 9 because “all the actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that perineal 10 use of Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products can cause ovarian or uterine cancer in 11 women.” Dkt. #5-2 at 1-4. 12 13 Courts consider three factors in determining whether to grant a motion to stay pending 14 possible transfer to an MDL proceeding: (1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) 15 inequity and hardship to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) potential judicial 16 resources saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are consolidated. See Rivers v. 17 Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997). 18 19 In the interest of preserving judicial resources and to avoid hardship and prejudice to the 20 parties, the Court finds that staying the case is warranted. Having considered the briefing and 21 the remainder of the record, pending transfer of this matter to MDL No. 2378, In re Johnson & 22 Johnson Talcum Powder Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, the Court 23 hereby finds and ORDERS the following: 24 25 1) Defendants’ Motion to Stay All Proceedings, Dkt. #5, is GRANTED. 26 2) This case is stayed until further action by this Court or transfer by the U.S. Judicial 27 Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 28 3) The parties are relieved of any pleading, discovery, or other obligation until further 1 2 notice. 3 4) Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Dkt. #14, is 4 STRICKEN and removed from the Court’s Calendar with leave to refile if necessary. 5 5) This case is administratively closed pending a ruling on such transfer. 6 DATED this 16th day of January, 2024. 7 8 A 9 10 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28