Lightfoot v. Johnson & Johnson et al, No. 2:2017cv08698 - Document 18 (E.D. La. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 5 Motion to Stay. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Johnson & Johnson's motion to stay this action pending its likely transfer to MDL No. 2738. This matter is administratively closed pending the stay. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 11/8/2017. (cg)

Download PDF
Lightfoot v. Johnson & Johnson et al Doc. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BRANDY LIGHTFOOT VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-8698 J OHNSON & J OHNSON ET AL. SECTION “R” (3) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is Defendant J ohnson & J ohnson’s unopposed m otion to stay this case pending its likely transfer to In re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Pow der Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2738, in the District of New J ersey. 1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D Plaintiff Brandy Lightfoot sued J ohnson & J ohnson, J ohnson & J ohnson Consum er Inc., Im erys Talc Am erica, Inc., and K&B Louisiana Corp. in state court on August 1, 20 17. 2 Plaintiff asserts that she developed ovarian cancer from using products, like J ohnson & J ohnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, that contained talcum powder. J ohnson & J ohnson 1 2 R. Doc. 5. See R. Doc. 10 -1. Dockets.Justia.com rem oved this case to federal court on September 6, 20 17, 3 and one day later m oved to stay proceedings pending the likely transfer to the MDL. The J udicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a conditional transfer order on Septem ber 12, 20 17. 4 Plaintiff has opposed transfer to the MDL, 5 though she has not opposed a stay. Two other m otions are pending in this case. First, plaintiff m oved to rem and to state court on the ground that com plete diversity is lacking. 6 Second, Imerys m oved to dism iss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 7 Both m otions are opposed. 8 II. D ISCU SSION The Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 70 6 (1997). In determ ining whether to grant a m otion to stay, the Court considers: “(1) the potential prejudice to the non-m oving party; (2) the 3 R. Doc. 1. R. Doc. 13-1. 5 See R. Doc. 13 at 4. 6 R. Doc. 6. Plaintiff contends that both she and Defendant K&B Louisiana Corp. are citizens of Louisiana. 7 R. Doc. 7. 8 See R. Doc. 9 (J ohnson & J ohnson’s opposition to plaintiff’s m otion to rem and); R. Doc. 13 (plaintiff’s opposition to Im erys’s motion to dism iss). 2 4 hardship and inequity to the m oving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation” if the case were in fact transferred to the MDL. Rizk v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 11-2272, 20 11 WL 4965498, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 20 11). Here, J ohnson & J ohnson would be prejudiced if it were forced to litigate the sam e issues in both this Court and the MDL. Additionally, a stay pending a determ ination regarding transfer to the MDL transferee court is in the interests of judicial econom y. Staying consideration of plaintiff’s m otion to remand and Imerys’s m otion to dism iss for lack of personal jurisdiction will prevent the risk of inconsistent and conflicting rulings while conserving judicial resources. Finally, plaintiff does not identify any prejudice from a stay of this action, nor does she oppose J ohnson & J ohnson’s m otion to stay. Accordingly, the Court finds that this action should be stayed pending a determ ination by the MDL panel as to whether the case is appropriate for transfer. 3 III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS J ohnson & J ohnson’s m otion to stay this action pending its likely transfer to MDL No. 2738. This m atter is adm inistratively closed pending the stay. 8th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of November, 20 17. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.