No. 20-
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`_________
`
`JOHNSON & JOHNSON and
`JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`GAIL L. INGHAM, et al.,
`Respondents.
`
`_________
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
`Missouri Court of Appeals for the
`Eastern District
`_________
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`_________
`
`E. JOSHUA ROSENKRANZ
`PETER A. BICKS
`LISA T. SIMPSON
`NAOMI J. SCOTTEN
`EDMUND HIRSCHFELD
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`
`NEAL KUMAR KATYAL
`Counsel of Record
`SEAN MAROTTA
`KATHERINE B. WELLINGTON
`BENJAMIN A. FIELD
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`(202) 637-5600
`neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`(Additional counsel listed on inside cover)
`
`
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`_________
`
`JOHNSON & JOHNSON and
`JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`GAIL L. INGHAM, et al.,
`Respondents.
`
`_________
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
`Missouri Court of Appeals for the
`Eastern District
`_________
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`_________
`
`E. JOSHUA ROSENKRANZ
`PETER A. BICKS
`LISA T. SIMPSON
`NAOMI J. SCOTTEN
`EDMUND HIRSCHFELD
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`
`NEAL KUMAR KATYAL
`Counsel of Record
`SEAN MAROTTA
`KATHERINE B. WELLINGTON
`BENJAMIN A. FIELD
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`(202) 637-5600
`neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`(Additional counsel listed on inside cover)
`
`
`
`Additional counsel:
`
`ROBERT M. LOEB
`ROBBIE MANHAS
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`KRISTINA ALEKSEYEVA
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`390 Madison Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`
`
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`1. Whether a court must assess if consolidating mul-
`tiple plaintiffs for a single trial violates due process,
`or whether it can presume that jury instructions al-
`ways cure both jury confusion and prejudice to the de-
`fendant.
`2. Whether a punitive-damages award violates due
`process when it far exceeds a substantial compensa-
`tory-damages award, and whether the ratio of puni-
`tive to compensatory damages for jointly and sever-
`ally liable defendants is calculated by assuming that
`each defendant will pay the entire compensatory
`award.
`3. Whether the “arise out of or relate to” requirement
`for specific personal jurisdiction can be met by merely
`showing a “link” in the chain of causation, as the court
`below held, or whether a heightened showing of relat-
`edness is required, as petitioner in Ford Motor Co. v.
`Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, No. 19-368,
`has argued.
`
`(i)
`
`
`
`ii
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
`Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Con-
`sumer Inc., petitioners on review, were defendants-
`appellants below.
`Gail L. Ingham, Robert Ingham, Laine Goldman,
`Carole Williams, Monica Sweat, Gregory Sweat, Rob-
`ert Packard, Andrea Schwartz-Thomas, Janus Ox-
`ford, William Oxford, Stephanie Martin, Ken Martin,
`Shelia Brooks, Martin Maillard, Krystal Kim, Annette
`Koman, Allan Koman, Toni Roberts, Marcia Owens,
`Mitzai Zschiesche, Tracee Baxter, Cecilia Martinez,
`Olga Salazar, Karen Hawk, Mark Hawk, Pamela
`Scarpino, Jackie Herbert North, Marvin Walker, and
`Talmadge Williams, respondents on review, were
`plaintiffs-appellees below.
`
`
`
`iii
`RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`1. Johnson & Johnson has no parent corporation,
`and no publicly held company owns 10% or more of
`Johnson & Johnson’s stock.
`2. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. is wholly
`owned by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Janssen
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is wholly owned by DePuy Syn-
`thes, Inc. DePuy Synthes, Inc. is wholly owned by
`Johnson & Johnson International. Johnson & John-
`son International is wholly owned by Johnson & John-
`son, which is a publicly held company.
`
`
`
`iv
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District:
`Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, No. ED 107476
`(Mo. Ct. App. June 23, 2020) (reported at 608
`S.W.3d 663), reh’g and/or transfer to Missouri
`Supreme Court denied (July 28, 2020), applica-
`tion for transfer to Missouri Supreme Court de-
`nied (Nov. 3, 2020).
`Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis:
`Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1522-
`CC10417 (Mo. Cir. Ct., 22d Judicial Cir.)
`Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1522-
`CC10417-01 (Mo. Cir. Ct., 22d Judicial Cir.)
`
`
`
`v
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................ i
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ........................... ii
`RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............... iii
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS ...................................... iv
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ix
`OPINIONS BELOW .................................................... 1
`JURISDICTION .......................................................... 1
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
`INVOLVED ............................................................ 2
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 2
`STATEMENT .............................................................. 5
`A. Talc Research ............................................ 5
`B. Trial Court Proceedings ........................... 6
`C. Appellate Proceedings .............................. 9
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE
`PETITION ............................................................ 10
`I.
`THE DECISION BELOW IS
`IRRECONCILEABLE WITH HOW
`NUMEROUS STATE AND
`FEDERAL COURTS ANALYZE
`DUE-PROCESS RISKS FROM MASS
`TRIALS ........................................................... 10
`A. The Decision Below Is At Odds
`With Other Courts’
`Consolidation Standards ........................ 11
`B. The Missouri-Alabama Rule
`Denies Due Process ................................ 17
`
`
`
`vi
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`II. THIS CASE EXACERBATES TWO
`CLEAR SPLITS OVER PUNITIVE
`DAMAGES ...................................................... 21
`A. The State And Federal Courts
`Are Divided Over The Due-
`Process Limits On Punitive
`Damages .................................................. 22
`B. The State And Federal Courts
`Are Divided Over How To
`Calculate The Ratio Of Punitive
`To Compensatory Damages .................... 26
`C. The Decision Below Is Divorced
`From This Court’s Precedent
`And Long-Standing Due-Process
`Principles ................................................ 28
`III. MISSOURI’S EXPANSIVE
`PERSONAL-JURISDICTION
`THEORY RAISES THE SAME
`QUESTION PRESENTED IN FORD ............ 32
`IV. THIS PETITION IS AN IDEAL
`VEHICLE TO CONSIDER THESE
`IMPORTANT, INTERLOCKING
`DUE-PROCESS QUESTIONS ....................... 34
`CONCLUSION .......................................................... 36
`APPENDIX
`APPENDIX A—Missouri Court of Appeals’
`Opinion (June 23, 2020) .................................... 1a
`
`
`
`vii
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`APPENDIX B—Missouri Circuit Court’s
`Order re Motion for Judgment
`Notwithstanding the Verdict, Motion
`for New Trials, and Motion for New
`Trials on Damages or Request for
`Remittitur (Dec. 19, 2018) ............................ 107a
`APPENDIX C—Missouri Circuit Court’s
`Order re Joint Motion to Sever
`Plaintiffs’ Claims for Improper Joinder
`(May 15, 2018) ............................................... 120a
`APPENDIX D—Missouri Circuit Court’s
`Order re Motions to Dismiss and
`Motions to Sever and Transfer Venue
`(May 15, 2018) ............................................... 122a
`APPENDIX E—Missouri Circuit Court’s
`Order re Motions to Transfer Venue, to
`Dismiss, and to Sever (May 17, 2016) .......... 133a
`APPENDIX F—Supreme Court of
`Missouri’s Order Denying Application
`to Transfer (Nov. 3, 2020) ............................. 146a
`APPENDIX G—Missouri Court of
`Appeals’ Order Denying Application for
`Transfer (July 28, 2020) ................................ 148a
`APPENDIX H—Missouri Circuit Court
`Trial Transcript, Volume 5 (June 6,
`2018) (excerpt) ............................................... 150a
`APPENDIX I—Missouri Circuit Court
`Trial Transcript, Volume 11 (June 14,
`2018) (excerpt) ............................................... 154a
`
`
`
`viii
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`APPENDIX J—Missouri Circuit Court
`Trial Transcript, Volume 18A (June
`26, 2018) (excerpts) ....................................... 161a
`APPENDIX K—Missouri Circuit Court
`Trial Transcript, Volume 24A (July 5,
`2018) (excerpt) ............................................... 166a
`APPENDIX L—Affidavit of Steven D.
`Penrod (Apr. 18, 2018) (excerpts) ................. 170a
`
`
`
`ix
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES:
`ACandS, Inc. v. Godwin,
`667 A.2d 116 (Md. 1995) ...................................... 17
`Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) .............................................. 20
`Arnold v. E. Air Lines, Inc.,
`681 F.2d 186 (4th Cir. 1982) ................................ 16
`Arnold v. E. Air Lines, Inc.,
`712 F.2d 899 (4th Cir. 1983) (en banc) ................ 16
`Bach v. First Union Nat’l Bank,
`486 F.3d 150 (6th Cir. 2007) ................................ 22
`Beydoun v. Wataniya Rests. Holding,
`Q.S.C.,
`768 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2004) .......................... 32, 33
`BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore,
`517 U.S. 559 (1996) ........................................ 28, 31
`Boerner v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
`Co.,
`394 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2005) ................................ 23
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior
`Court,
`137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) ...................................... 7, 34
`Broussard v. Meineke Disc. Muffler Shops,
`Inc.,
`155 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 1998) ................................ 18
`Bruton v. United States,
`391 U.S. 123 (1968) .............................................. 20
`Cantrell v. GAF Corp.,
`999 F.2d 1007 (6th Cir. 1993) .............................. 16
`
`
`
`x
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page
`
`Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.,
`556 U.S. 868 (2009) .............................................. 17
`Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
`569 U.S. 27 (2013) .................................................. 3
`Cote v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
`985 F.3d 840 (11th Cir. 2021) .............................. 24
`Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cty. Emps. Ret. Fund,
`137 S. Ct. 2325 (2017) .......................................... 35
`Dieser v. St. Anthony’s Med. Ctr.,
`498 S.W.3d 419 (Mo. 2016) .................................. 12
`Dupont v. S. Pac. Co.,
`366 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1966) ................................ 14
`Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker,
`554 U.S. 471 (2008) .............................. 3, 21, 29, 30
`Fidelity Fed. Bank & Tr. v. Kehoe,
`547 U.S. 1051 (2006) ............................................ 35
`Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judi-
`cial Dist. Ct.,
`140 S. Ct. 917 (2020) .................................... 4, 5, 33
`Grabinski v. Blue Springs Ford Sales,
`Inc.,
`203 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 2000) .............................. 27
`Gwathmey v. United States,
`215 F.2d 148 (5th Cir. 1954) .......................... 13, 14
`Hall v. Hall,
`138 S. Ct. 1118 (2018) .......................................... 18
`Harlow v. Children’s Hosp.,
`432 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2005) .................................. 32
`
`
`
`xi
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page
`
`Honeycutt v. United States,
`137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) .......................................... 26
`Horizon Health Corp. v. Acadia
`Healthcare Co.,
`520 S.W.3d 848 (Tex. 2017) ................................. 27
`In re Ethyl Corp.,
`975 S.W.2d 606 (Tex. 1998) ................................. 15
`In re Fibreboard Corp.,
`893 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1990) ................................ 14
`In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litig.,
`11 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 1993) ................................... 13
`In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc.,
`145 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. 2004) ................................. 15
`Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond,
`866 So. 2d 1092 (Miss. 2004) ............................... 16
`Johnson v. Celotex Corp.,
`899 F.2d 1281 (2d Cir. 1990) ............................... 12
`Johnson v. Des Moines Metro. Wastewater
`Reclamation Auth.,
`814 N.W.2d 240 (Iowa 2012) .......................... 15, 16
`Jurinko v. Med. Protective Co.,
`305 F. App’x 13 (3d Cir. 2008) ....................... 22, 23
`KGK Jewelry LLC v. ESDNetwork,
`2014 WL 7333291 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 24,
`2014) ..................................................................... 13
`Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of Durham
`Cty.,
`452 U.S. 18 (1981) ................................................ 14
`
`
`
`xii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page
`
`Lee ex rel. Lee v. Borders,
`764 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 2014) ................................ 23
`Lewellen v. Franklin,
`441 S.W.3d 136 (Mo. 2014) ............................ 26, 27
`Lompe v. Sunridge Partners, LLC,
`818 F.3d 1041 (10th Cir. 2016) ............................ 22
`Malcolm v. Nat’l Gypsum Co.,
`995 F.2d 346 (2d Cir. 1993) ........................... 13, 18
`Manor Care, Inc. v. Douglas,
`763 S.E.2d 73 (W. Va. 2014) ................................ 24
`Minnesota Pers. Injury Asbestos Cases v.
`Keene Corp.,
`481 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. 1992) ................................ 17
`Mobil Oil Expl. & Producing Se., Inc. v.
`United Distrib. Cos.,
`498 U.S. 211 (1991) .............................................. 34
`Morgan v. New York Life Ins. Co.,
`559 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2009) ................................ 22
`Murr v. Wisconsin,
`136 S. Ct. 890 (2017) ............................................ 35
`Olson v. Brenntag N. Am., Inc.,
`132 N.Y.S.3d 741 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)
`(Table) ................................................................... 27
`Ondrisek v. Hoffman,
`698 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2012) .............................. 23
`Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.,
`527 U.S. 815 (1999) .............................................. 20
`Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Gant,
`662 So. 2d 255 (Ala. 1995) ................................... 17
`
`
`
`xiii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page
`
`Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip,
`499 U.S. 1 (1991) .................................................. 30
`Philip Morris USA v. Williams,
`549 U.S. 346 (2007) .............................................. 31
`Planned Parenthood of Colum-
`bia/Willamette Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life
`Activists,
`422 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................ 24
`Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC,
`951 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................. 24
`Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,
`378 F.2d 832 (2d Cir. 1967) ................................. 30
`Roth v. Farner-Bocken Co.,
`667 N.W.2d 651 (S.D. 2003) ................................. 23
`Seltzer v. Morton,
`154 P.3d 561 (Mont. 2007) ................................... 24
`State ex rel. Appalachian Power Co. v.
`Ranson,
`438 S.E.2d 609 (W. Va. 1993) .............................. 15
`State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Camp-
`bell,
`538 U.S. 408 (2003) ...................................... passim
`Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. v. Pitts,
`236 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. 2007) ................................. 17
`Sw. Refin. Co. v. Bernal,
`22 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. 2000) ................................... 18
`Trevizo v. Cloonan,
`2000 WL 33348794 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 29,
`2000) ..................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`xiv
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page
`
`Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Barber,
`149 S.W.3d 325 (Ark. 2004) ................................. 24
`Vicksburg Chem. Co. v. Thornell,
`355 So. 2d 299 (Miss. 1978) ................................. 16
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) .......................................... 3, 20
`Watts v. S. Bound R.R. Co.,
`38 S.E. 240 (S.C. 1901) ........................................ 31
`Weiss v. Nat’l Westminster Bank PLC,
`2017 WL 10058916 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31,
`2017) ..................................................................... 13
`Williams v. ConAgra Poultry Co.,
`378 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2004) ................................ 23
`Williams v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`127 P.3d 1165 (Or. 2006), adhered to on
`reconsideration, 176 P.3d 1255 (2008) ................ 25
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION:
`U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 ..................................... 2
`STATUTE:
`28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) ................................................... 2
`OTHER AUTHORITIES:
`Thomas B. Colby, Beyond the Multiple
`Punishment Problem: Punitive Damages
`As Punishment for Individual, Private
`Wrongs, 87 Minn. L. Rev. 583 (2003) .................. 31
`Margaret Cronin Fisk, Why Johnson &
`Johnson May Not Have to Pay Its $4.7
`Billion Court Verdict, Bloomberg (Jan.
`9, 2019), https://bloom.bg/3iQmPEl ..................... 34
`
`
`
`xv
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page
`
`Laura J. Hines & N. William Hines, Con-
`stitutional Constraints on Punitive
`Damages: Clarity, Consistency, and the
`Outlier Dilemma, 66 Hastings L.J. 1257
`(2015) ............................................................. 28, 29
`Jill Wieber Lens, Procedural Due Process
`and Predictable Punitive Damage
`Awards, 2012 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (2012) ................. 29
`Carter G. Phillips et al., Rescuing Multi-
`district Litigation from the Altar of Ex-
`pediency, 1997 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 821 (1997) ........... 20
`Mark H. Reeves, Makes Sense to Me: How
`Moderate, Targeted Federal Tort Reform
`Legislation Could Solve the Nation’s As-
`bestos Litigation Crisis, 56 Vand. L.
`Rev. 1949 (2003) ................................................... 19
`Stephen M. Shapiro et al., Supreme Court
`Practice § 4.13 (10th ed. 2013) ............................. 34
`Catherine M. Sharkey, Punitive Damages
`As Societal Damages, 113 Yale L.J. 347
`(2003) .................................................................... 30
`Top 100 Verdicts of 2018, Nat’l L.J., June
`2019, available at https://bit.ly/2YfEThA ........... 34
`U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-11-
`819, Asbestos Injury Compensation: The
`Role and Administration of Asbestos
`Trusts (2011) .................................................. 31, 32
`
`
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`_________
`No. 20-
`_________
`
`JOHNSON & JOHNSON and
`JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`GAIL L. INGHAM, et al.,
`Respondents.
`_________
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
`Missouri Court of Appeals for the
`Eastern District
`_________
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`_________
`Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Con-
`sumer Inc. respectfully petition for a writ of certiorari
`to review the judgment of the Missouri Court of Ap-
`peals for the Eastern District in this case.
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The Missouri Court of Appeals’ opinion is reported
`at 608 S.W.3d 663. Pet. App. 1a-106a. The City of St.
`Louis Circuit Court’s orders are unreported. Id. at
`107a-145a. The Missouri Supreme Court’s order
`denying further review is unreported. Id. at 146a-
`147a.
`
`JURISDICTION
`The Missouri Court of Appeals entered judgment on
`June 23, 2020. Pet. App. 1a-106a. On November 3,
`(1)
`
`
`
`2
`2020, the Missouri Supreme Court denied Petitioners’
`timely application to transfer. Id. at 146a-147a. On
`March 19, 2020, this Court extended the deadline to
`petition for a writ of certiorari to 150 days. This Court
`has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED
`The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-
`ment, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, provides:
`[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life,
`liberty, or property, without due process of law.
`INTRODUCTION
`This case arises from an over $2 billion judgment
`against Petitioners Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and
`Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (JJCI). Petitioners
`have sold their iconic baby powder to millions of Amer-
`icans for decades. Over the last several years, how-
`ever, plaintiffs’ lawyers have filed thousands of law-
`suits in select jurisdictions alleging—against the vast
`weight of scientific evidence—that Petitioners’ cos-
`metic talc products are contaminated with asbestos
`and cause ovarian cancer. Contrary to those claims,
`federal regulators and respected health organizations
`have rejected calls for warnings on talc, and compre-
`hensive epidemiological studies tracking tens of thou-
`sands of talc users have found no meaningful associa-
`tion between cosmetic talc use and ovarian cancer.
`Yet some plaintiffs’ lawyers have struck on a win-
`ning formula: They first canvass the country for
`women who were both diagnosed with ovarian cancer
`and among the millions who used Petitioners’ talc
`products. They then select a jurisdiction where out-
`of-state plaintiffs can be consolidated with in-state
`plaintiffs for a single mass trial. They put dozens of
`
`
`
`3
`plaintiffs on the stand to discuss their experiences
`with cancer, and the jury awards billions of dollars in
`punitive damages supposedly to punish Petitioners.
`Lawyers can then follow this script and file the same
`claims with new plaintiffs and seek new outsized
`awards, over and over again.
`This case illustrates the problem. The Missouri
`court consolidated for trial 22 plaintiffs’ disparate
`claims under 12 States’ laws before a single jury—not-
`withstanding plaintiffs’ widely divergent circum-
`stances and injuries, ranging from full remission to
`lengthy illness and death. Evidencing the prejudicial
`joinder, the jury found liability as to all 22 plaintiffs
`and awarded $25 million in compensatory damages to
`each of the 22 plaintiff families. On top of that, the
`Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a $1.6 billion puni-
`tive award, a figure that for J&J was more than eleven
`times the already staggering compensatories. And the
`court gave no heed to the fact that 17 plaintiffs
`brought into this mass trial did not reside in Missouri,
`did not purchase or use Petitioners’ products in Mis-
`souri, did not rely on any Missouri advertising in mak-
`ing their purchasing decisions, and were not injured
`in Missouri. Those rulings infringe Petitioners’ fun-
`damental due-process rights.
`This Court has insisted that class-action defendants
`are entitled to “individualized determinations” of in-
`jury for each plaintiff. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338, 366 (2011). And it has reined in class-
`action damages abuses. See, e.g., Comcast Corp. v.
`Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 34-36 (2013); Exxon Shipping
`Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 514-515 & n.28 (2008). To-
`day, confusion reigns in the lower courts over the due-
`process boundaries of mass trials—and whether jury
`
`
`
`4
`instructions by themselves are a sufficient antidote to
`the jury confusion and prejudice mass trials cause.
`The Court should intervene here to curb due-process
`abuses in mass-tort suits and ensure that state courts
`give mass-tort defendants the same rights as everyone
`else.
`First, the Missouri appellate court did not even eval-
`uate whether consolidating 22 plaintiffs’ disparate
`claims violated Petitioners’ due-process rights; it in-
`stead said that it “must” presume that jury instruc-
`tions cured any problems. Pet. App. 14a-16a, 18a-19a.
`Multiple state and federal courts disagree, holding
`that courts must evaluate whether consolidation vio-
`lates due process despite the jury instructions.
`Second, the Missouri court held that the $1.6 billion
`punitive award—which far exceeds a 1:1 ratio of puni-
`tive to compensatory damages—did not violate Peti-
`tioners’ due-process rights. See id. at 101a-103a. But
`other state and federal courts would have reduced the
`award by over a billion dollars. In fact, had the case
`been in Missouri federal court, both the ratio and its
`compatibility with due process would have been ana-
`lyzed differently, reducing the punitive award by at
`least hundreds of millions.
`Third, the Missouri court found specific personal ju-
`risdiction over JJCI because of its contract with a
`third party to bottle one of its talc products in Mis-
`souri, concluding that this activity was a “direct link
`in the production chain of [the product]’s eventual sale
`to the public.” Id. at 35a. But the “arise out of or re-
`late to” prong of specific personal jurisdiction requires
`more than a mere but-for “link” in the chain of causa-
`tion—as many courts have held. See Petition for Writ
`of Certiorari at 12-16, Ford Motor Co. v. Montana
`
`
`
`5
`Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., No. 19-368 (U.S. Sept. 18,
`2019), cert. granted, 140 S. Ct. 917 (2020).
`Each issue warrants the Court’s attention. That
`they are presented in a single petition challenging one
`of the largest verdicts ever in a product-liability case
`gives the Court an extraordinary opportunity to re-
`solve the most common and troubling due-process
`questions posed by mass-tort litigation, a gap left open
`by this Court’s precedents. At a minimum, the Court
`should consider granting, vacating, and remanding
`this case in light of Ford.
`STATEMENT
`A. Talc Research
`Hundreds of millions of Americans have used Peti-
`tioners’ cosmetic talc products, including Johnson’s
`Baby Powder. 1 Plaintiffs’ claim that cosmetic talc
`products contain asbestos first received attention in
`the 1970s, when Dr. Arthur Langer claimed to find as-
`bestos in talc samples—a claim he later withdrew as
`to Johnson’s Baby Powder.
`Since then, scientists have studied for decades
`whether there is any link between talc use and ovar-
`ian cancer, and the three largest epidemiological stud-
`ies—tracking the health of tens of thousands of
`women—have found no meaningful relationship. See
`C.A. Appellants’ Appx. A294, A298, A307; Tr. 4689:13-
`4700:21.2 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
`National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer
`
`1 J&J sold cosmetic talc products until 1979, when it trans-
`ferred those products to subsidiaries, which ultimately be-
`came JJCI. See Pet. App. 3a, 103a.
`2 “Tr.” citations are to the trial transcript.
`
`
`
`6
`Society have reached the same conclusion. See Pet.
`App. 91a-92a. And the FDA has repeatedly found that
`warning labels on cosmetic talc products are scientifi-
`cally unwarranted. See id.
`Petitioners have used leading independent laborato-
`ries to ensure that their cosmetic talc products were
`not contaminated with asbestos, and they deny that
`their products contain asbestos or cause cancer. See
`Tr. 4167:1-10, 5128:17-5144:1, 5157:6-5164:21,
`5170:11-5228:10. Petitioners have also conducted
`thousands of their own tests to ensure there was no
`asbestos contamination in these products. See id. at
`5135:23-5138:8. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have nevertheless
`filed thousands of lawsuits across the country alleging
`that Johnson’s Baby Powder causes ovarian cancer.
`B. Trial Court Proceedings
`This is one such case. Plaintiffs are 22 women who
`filed suit against Petitioners in the St. Louis City,
`Missouri Circuit Court alongside eight plaintiffs’
`spouses. See Pet. App. 2a n.1, 3a. All 22 plaintiffs
`initially alleged that they had used Johnson’s Baby
`Powder and later developed ovarian cancer. See id. at
`3a-4a. Plaintiffs and their spouses sought relief under
`12 different States’ laws, asserting product-liability
`and loss-of-consortium claims. See id. They also
`sought punitive damages. Id. at 3a.
`Johnson’s Baby Powder was always manufactured
`outside Missouri, and only five plaintiffs even alleged
`they purchased that product in Missouri. See id. at
`3a-5a, 30a. Petitioners moved to dismiss for lack of
`personal jurisdiction the claims of 17 plaintiffs who
`did not reside in Missouri, did not purchase or use Pe-
`titioners’ products in Missouri, did not rely on Mis-
`souri advertising
`in making
`their purchasing
`
`
`
`7
`decisions, and were not injured in Missouri (the “non-
`Missouri plaintiffs”). See id. at 4a. The trial court in-
`itially denied the motion. Id. at 122a-132a.
`After Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court,
`137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), 15 of the 17 non-Missouri
`plaintiffs asserted for the first time that they had used
`Shower-to-Shower Shimmer Effects (Shimmer), a glit-
`tery body powder JJCI sold in nominal amounts be-
`tween 2005 and 2010. See Pet. App. 4a-6a & nn.5-6.
`During part of that period, JJCI contracted with
`Pharma Tech, a Missouri manufacturing-for-hire
`company, to mix and package Shimmer and to affix a
`label JJCI designed in New Jersey. See id. at 4a-6a,
`33a.
`The 15 non-Missouri plaintiffs offered little proof
`that they had purchased Shimmer. One testified that
`she had a dream of using Shimmer after her lawyer—
`post-Bristol-Myers Squibb—asked about the product.
`Id. at 157a-158a. The trial court nonetheless accepted
`the non-Missouri plaintiffs’ assertions and found per-
`sonal jurisdiction over JJCI and J&J, including with
`respect to the plaintiffs who did not use Shimmer. Id.
`at 6a-7a, 128a-130a.
`All 22 plaintiffs asked to have their claims heard to-
`gether before the same jury. Petitioners objected, ex-
`plaining that plaintiffs had used different talc prod-
`ucts at different levels of intensity for different peri-
`ods of time in different States. See id. at 7a, 11a-12a.
`Plaintiffs also had dramatically different risk factors
`for and experiences with cancer. See id. Some plain-
`tiffs had a genetic or family predisposition for cancer,
`while others did not. See id. And some plaintiffs ex-
`perienced remission after treatment, whereas others
`died after a years-long battle. See id. at 11a-12a.
`
`
`
`8
`Petitioners explained that consolidation would con-
`fuse the jury and prejudice their defense by “blurr[ing]
`distinctions in the law and defenses applicable to each
`[p]laintiff’s claim,” violating their due-process rights.
`Id. at 17a-18a; see Appellants’ C.A. Br. 82-83. The
`trial court denied the severance motions. Pet. App.
`7a, 142a-144a.
`At trial, there was little (if any) evidence that plain-
`tiffs ever used products from Petitioners that con-
`tained asbestos. Even though ovarian cancer has nu-
`merous established risk factors, see Tr. 4720:14-
`4723:9, plaintiffs’ expert opined that each of the 22
`plaintiffs’ talc use “directly contributed” to her ovar-
`ian cancer—using the same language for each. Pet.
`App. 74a-75a. The expert provided as little as a few
`words of analysis for each plaintiff. See id. at 163a-
`164a (15 words for Ms. Webb); id. at 164a-165a (21
`words for Ms. Hillman). And plaintiffs’ counsel urged
`the jury to infer causation from the two things that
`“all of these women have * * * in common”: “[a]ll of
`them used * * * Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder” and
`all of them “got cancer.” Id. at 152a.
`It took the trial court more than five hours to in-
`struct the jury on 12 different States’ laws. See id. at
`14a; see also Tr. 5872:11-15 (court informing the jury
`that it would “plow through” hundreds of pages of jury
`instructions because there were no “other alterna-
`tives”). Yet the jury deliberated less than 20 minutes
`on average for each plaintiff family, rendering identi-
`cal $25 million compensatory awards for each—irre-
`spective of whether the plaintiff was alive or dead,
`how long she had suffered from cancer, which talc
`product she used, and whether the plaintiff brought
`suit individually or with her spouse. See Pet. App. 8a.
`
`
`
`9
`In total, the jury awarded $550 million in compensa-
`tory damages. See id.
`The jury then awarded $3.15 billion in punitive
`damages against J&J and $990 million in punitive
`damages against JJCI—over $4 billion altogether. Id.
`One juror later explained that the award was in-
`tended to disgorge Petitioners’ nationwide profits
`from talc sales over the last four decades. See C.A.
`Appellants’ Appx. A317-318.
`C. Appellate Proceedings
`The Missouri Court of Appeals largely affirmed.
`Pet. App. 105a-106a. The court rejected Petitioners’
`argument that consolidation violated their due-pro-
`cess rights. It acknowledged the “obvious differences
`among Plaintiffs’ claims,” but held that “[a]ny dangers
`of prejudice arising from joinder were adequately ad-
`dressed by the trial court’s instructions to the jury to
`consider each Plaintiff’s claim separately.” Id. at 18a-
`19a.
`The court agreed with Petitioners that the trial
`court lacked jurisdiction over J&J with respect to the
`non-Missouri plaintiffs. See id. at 48a-49a. And it
`found no jurisdiction at all over the two non-Missouri
`plaintiffs who did not allege using Shimmer. See id.
`at 40a, 48a-49a. But the court found personal juris-
`diction over the claims of the 15 non-Missouri plain-
`tiffs who alleged using Shimmer because “JJCI con-
`tracted with Missouri-based Pharma Tech Industries
`to manufacture, package, and label Shimmer,” and
`“JJCI’s activities with Pharma Tech” “represent a di-
`rect link in the production chain of Shimmer’s even-
`tual sale to the public.” Id. at 32a-33a, 35a.
`The court reduced the damages award based on its
`personal-jurisdiction rulings, entering
`judgment
`
`
`
`10
`against JJCI for $375 million in compensatory dam-
`ages, and against J&J and JJCI jointly and severally
`for $125 million more in compensatory damages. Id.
`at 100a. The court also purported to reduce the puni-
`tive damages proportionally, retaining the same puni-
`tive-to-compensatory ratios awarded by the jury. See
`id. The court accordingly affirmed a $900 million pu-
`nitive-damages award against JJCI and a $715.9 mil-
`lion punitive-damages award against J&J. Id. at
`100a-101a.
`The court believed that these awards w
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
