Imerys Talc America, Inc. Granted Dismissal From Illinois Lawsuit

The Southern District of Illinois federal court found that it held no personal jurisdiction over defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc. and granted its motion for dismissal from litigation centered on the alleged increase risk of ovarian cancer posed by talcum powder products.

Monday, August 31, 2015 - An order handed down August 28 by the Southern District of Illinois federal court resulted in the dismissal of a talcum powder defendant in a lawsuit filed by a plaintiff who claimed that Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products contributed to her contraction of ovarian cancer. The court claimed that a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc., a company that mines talc for companies that manufacture talcum powder products, led to its decision to dismiss the defendant from the proceedings.

Imerys Talc America, Inc. originally filed the motion for dismissal in April and it received no response from the plaintiff. The lack of a rebuttal from the plaintiffs allowed the court to infer that the motion filed by the defendant was not a point of contention for either side. This is made clear by a Local Rule of the court which requires "a response to a motion to dismiss be

filed 30 days after service of the motion and stating a failure to timely respond may be deemed

an admission of the merits of the motion."

The personal jurisdiction grounds upon which Imerys Talc America, Inc. was dismissed from the proceedings in the Southern District of Illinois demonstrated that the defendant did not meet the minimum requirements of contact with the state for the court to rule within its limits on the claims made against the mining company. The court found that Imerys did not qualify for either the specific or general designators used to determine a defendant's eligibility for personal jurisdiction. Specific personal jurisdiction involves the direct involvement of a defendant in actions that affect the residents of those bringing the lawsuit in a legal district. General personal jurisdiction covers corporations whose operations are so "continuous and systematic" in a particular district that they can be considered to be at home in litigation that is centered before the relevant court. Not meeting either of these requirements, the court granted Imerys' motion for dismissal.

The plaintiff whose lawsuit Imerys was excused from claimed that along with Johnson & Johnson and Walgreens, the defendants had recklessly marketed talcum powder products to consumers without warning them of the potential for an increased risk in contracting ovarian cancer. Attorneys for the plaintiff referenced years of talcum powder research that demonstrated links between the substance and an increased risk in ovarian cancer for women who used the product regularly. The talcum powder research, which dates back to the 1970s, has been allegedly ignored by the manufacturers of talcum powder products in an effort to protect their marketability and revenue streams at the cost of risking consumer health.

Talcum Powder lawsuits nationwide however are not seriously affected by the dismissal of Imerys from the Illinois litigation, as more than 700 lawsuits against central defendant Johnson & Johnson are still pending around the country. A status conference hearing on dozens of lawsuits in St. Louis was held on July 14, while multicounty litigation in New Jersey involving more than 100 talcum powder lawsuits is expected in the near future as both plaintiffs and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pursue state consolidation.

Information provided by TalcumPowderCancerLawsuit.com, a website devoted to providing news about talcum powder ovarian cancer lawsuits, as well as medical research and findings.