On June 1, 2021, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) appeal to overturn a $2.12 billion dollar damages award to 22 female plaintiffs who alleged their ovarian cancer was caused by J&J’s talcum powder products. This is a significant setback for defendants in defending consolidated multi-plaintiff mass tort trials and a juries ability to award large punitive damage awards.
U.S. Supreme Court
CWA Series: In redefining the scope of the Clean Water Act, will the new WOTUS rule truly be a sea change?
The Trump Administration, through the EPA and Corps, announced its new regulatory definition for WOTUS on December 11, 2018. Shortly after the government shutdown ended earlier this year, the proposed rule appeared in the February 14, 2019, Federal Register and EPA held a public hearing in Kansas City, Kansas, on February 27th and 28th. Much…
Toxic Tort Monitor: U.S. Supreme Court Narrows “Bare Metal Defense” for Maritime Asbestos Cases
In its decision Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court held, under maritime law, that manufacturers can be held liable for injuries caused by asbestos-containing parts manufactured and added to their products by third parties. The case, Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, involved Navy sailors who were allegedly exposed to asbestos that was used with certain equipment on the Navy vessels to which they were assigned. The sailors claimed this exposure ultimately caused their cancer. The sailors brought suit against the manufacturers of equipment such as pumps, blowers, and turbines, alleging that the manufacturers were negligent in failing to warn them about the dangers of asbestos.
Deadline for Permission to Appeal Class Certification Ruling Cannot be Equitably Tolled, Supreme Court Holds
On February 26, 2019, in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)’s 14-day deadline to request permission to appeal a district court’s order regarding class certification cannot be equitably tolled. The Supreme Court’s opinion left open the possibility that the 14-day deadline…
CWA Series: SCOTUS Agrees to Grant Certiorari on Indirect Discharge Question
In Part 1 of our Clean Water Act (CWA) Series, we reported on the circuit split between the Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals regarding whether indirect discharges to Waters of the United States (WOTUS) through groundwater required a CWA permit. On February 19, 2019, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments…
CWA Series: Do Discharges to Groundwater Require a Permit? Depends on Who You Ask
Under the Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act) expressly forbids the discharge of pollutants without a permit. The term “discharge of pollutants” means the “addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” Any discharge of pollutants must be covered under a federal or state discharge permit (e.g., a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for the discharge of dredged and fill material or a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the discharge of other pollutants); otherwise the discharge would be in violation of the CWA. If it does not constitute a discharge of pollutants, then the release does not violate the CWA.
A flurry of recent cases around the United States has created a circuit split over whether the CWA governs discharges to groundwater that eventually add pollutants to navigable waters. However, there are a few points these courts seem to agree on.
Toxic Tort Monitor – June 18, 2018
June 18, 2018 | Editor: Jen Dlugosz | Assistant Editor: Natalie Holden |
New Developments |
New Tool for Non-Resident Defendants Seeking to Challenge Personal Jurisdiction in Illinois By Dominque Savinelli If you are a non-resident corporate defendant in Cook County, Illinois, you should become familiar with Campbell v. Acme Insulations, Inc., as it will undoubtedly |
…
Toxic Tort Monitor – March 14, 2018
March 14, 2018 | Editor: Jen Dlugosz | Assistant Editors: Anne McLeod and Natalie Holden |
New Developments |
Precluding a Second Bite at the Apple; Federal District Court Grants Summary Judgment on Basis of Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel By Tierra Jones In the interest of justice and courtroom efficiency, res judicata aims to prevent parties |
…
Toxic Tort Monitor – January 17, 2018
January 17, 2018 |
New Developments |
A Review of 2017 Personal Jurisdiction Decisions By Taylor Concannon In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California continued the trend that began in Goodyear and Daimler and reaffirmed its limits on personal jurisdiction |
…
Product Liability Monitor – December 4, 2017
December 4, 2017 |
New Developments |
Missouri Adopts Daubert: What It Means in Product Liability Cases By Theresa Mullineaux In March 2017, Missouri Governor Eric Greitens signed House Bill 153, which amended Mo. Rev. Stat. § 490.065, and effectively adopted Daubert standards for Missouri cases, effective in August 2017. As a result, Missouri now follows |
…