1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:02,400
Speaker 1: Jay and Jay has won a reversal of a seventy

2
00:00:02,400 --> 00:00:06,760
Speaker 1: two million dollar verdict claiming its talent products caused ovarian cancer.

3
00:00:07,160 --> 00:00:09,520
Speaker 1: It was the first of a series of jury awards

4
00:00:09,520 --> 00:00:11,959
Speaker 1: against J and J and a St. Louis court, and

5
00:00:11,960 --> 00:00:14,560
Speaker 1: it throws the fate of more than three hundred million

6
00:00:14,600 --> 00:00:17,520
Speaker 1: dollars in other awards in the same court into question,

7
00:00:17,920 --> 00:00:21,160
Speaker 1: as well as more than one thousand similar lawsuits filed there.

8
00:00:21,520 --> 00:00:24,239
Speaker 1: The lawsuit was filed by an Alabama woman before her

9
00:00:24,280 --> 00:00:27,880
Speaker 1: death in fifteen, and the Missouri Federal Appeals Court cited

10
00:00:27,880 --> 00:00:31,120
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court decision in June limiting out of state

11
00:00:31,160 --> 00:00:34,839
Speaker 1: plaintiffs from combining actions in a lower court. Joining us

12
00:00:35,000 --> 00:00:37,720
Speaker 1: is Howard Ericson, a professor at Fordham Law School who

13
00:00:37,800 --> 00:00:43,360
Speaker 1: specializes in complex litigation. Howard explained why the Missouri Appeals

14
00:00:43,400 --> 00:00:48,320
Speaker 1: Court throughout the award. Sure the U. S. Supreme Court

15
00:00:48,440 --> 00:00:52,800
Speaker 1: in June decided a case involving an entirely different drug

16
00:00:53,320 --> 00:00:55,960
Speaker 1: um but where the Supreme Court addressed the issue of

17
00:00:56,040 --> 00:00:59,440
Speaker 1: personal jurisdiction, that is, the power of a court debined

18
00:01:00,040 --> 00:01:03,640
Speaker 1: the defendant, and what the court said essentially is that

19
00:01:03,720 --> 00:01:06,800
Speaker 1: plaintiffs have to bring a lawsuit either in the defendant's

20
00:01:06,880 --> 00:01:11,200
Speaker 1: home state or in a state that the claim arose

21
00:01:11,280 --> 00:01:14,600
Speaker 1: out of. So in the Missouri talc case, you've got

22
00:01:14,600 --> 00:01:17,680
Speaker 1: an Alabama woman who had sued Johnson and Johnson, a

23
00:01:17,760 --> 00:01:22,880
Speaker 1: New Jersey company, in Missouri state court, and she was

24
00:01:22,920 --> 00:01:25,560
Speaker 1: able to do that initially because she joined her case

25
00:01:25,920 --> 00:01:28,640
Speaker 1: with a couple of Missouri plaintiffs as well as lots

26
00:01:28,680 --> 00:01:31,200
Speaker 1: of other plaintiffs from around the country. But based on

27
00:01:31,240 --> 00:01:34,039
Speaker 1: this new Supreme Court ruling, what the Missouri Appellate Court

28
00:01:34,080 --> 00:01:37,279
Speaker 1: had to say is, well, the Missouri State Court simply

29
00:01:37,319 --> 00:01:40,640
Speaker 1: doesn't have the power to render a decision in the

30
00:01:40,720 --> 00:01:44,440
Speaker 1: case in this case between an Alabama plaintiffs and a

31
00:01:44,480 --> 00:01:47,600
Speaker 1: New Jersey company, given that it's not the defendant's home

32
00:01:47,640 --> 00:01:49,760
Speaker 1: state and it's not a state that the claimer rose

33
00:01:49,760 --> 00:01:54,040
Speaker 1: out of. Well, clearly this decision has is meant to

34
00:01:54,080 --> 00:01:56,720
Speaker 1: try to stop some kind of forum shopping I've seen

35
00:01:56,720 --> 00:02:00,440
Speaker 1: by the Supreme Court where plainiffs lawyers try to pick a, uh,

36
00:02:00,480 --> 00:02:03,000
Speaker 1: you know, a favorable place to bring a particular lawsuit.

37
00:02:04,200 --> 00:02:06,480
Speaker 1: Was that the situation here? Why did they pick Missouri

38
00:02:06,520 --> 00:02:09,000
Speaker 1: as the place to file this case? Yeah, I think

39
00:02:09,360 --> 00:02:13,800
Speaker 1: you've said it exactly exactly right. That it's quite common

40
00:02:14,080 --> 00:02:19,240
Speaker 1: for lawyers representing plaintiffs to choose what they consider the

41
00:02:19,280 --> 00:02:23,240
Speaker 1: strategically most advantageous forum. And there's nothing wrong with that.

42
00:02:23,240 --> 00:02:25,720
Speaker 1: That's that's what every good plaintiffs lawyer ought to do.

43
00:02:26,360 --> 00:02:29,680
Speaker 1: And by the same token, every good defense lawyer should

44
00:02:30,360 --> 00:02:33,160
Speaker 1: try to decide is this a disadvantageous forum, and if so,

45
00:02:33,840 --> 00:02:36,360
Speaker 1: should see if there are procedural avenues to get the

46
00:02:36,400 --> 00:02:40,120
Speaker 1: case moved to a different forum. Um. But that is

47
00:02:40,280 --> 00:02:43,560
Speaker 1: the baseline that the Supreme Court was dealing with when

48
00:02:43,560 --> 00:02:46,880
Speaker 1: it decided to Bristol Myers Squib case in June. And

49
00:02:46,919 --> 00:02:51,280
Speaker 1: you're absolutely right. This limit on personal jurisdiction now makes

50
00:02:51,320 --> 00:02:55,040
Speaker 1: it more difficult for plaintiffs to choose the forum that

51
00:02:55,080 --> 00:02:59,200
Speaker 1: they consider strategically most advantageous. So, Howard, in four of

52
00:02:59,240 --> 00:03:01,680
Speaker 1: the five try was held so far in St. Louis,

53
00:03:01,760 --> 00:03:05,240
Speaker 1: the jurors awarded more than three hundred million dollars combined.

54
00:03:06,040 --> 00:03:09,160
Speaker 1: J and Jay has appealed those are those going to

55
00:03:09,240 --> 00:03:13,239
Speaker 1: fall the same way that this case? Phil. It seems

56
00:03:13,240 --> 00:03:17,000
Speaker 1: to me quite likely that in the that in cases

57
00:03:17,720 --> 00:03:21,160
Speaker 1: On brought him a half of plaintiffs who are not

58
00:03:21,240 --> 00:03:24,000
Speaker 1: Missouri plaintiffs. And I believe all of those trials so

59
00:03:24,080 --> 00:03:27,079
Speaker 1: far where non Missouri plaintiffs that they're going to see

60
00:03:27,080 --> 00:03:30,280
Speaker 1: the same thing happened that the court is going to say, Uh,

61
00:03:30,400 --> 00:03:34,320
Speaker 1: Missouri does not have jurisdiction over Johnson and Johnson and

62
00:03:34,360 --> 00:03:40,440
Speaker 1: New Jersey Company in those cases and what happened, well,

63
00:03:40,480 --> 00:03:45,160
Speaker 1: then then the plaintiffs have the option of filing of

64
00:03:45,240 --> 00:03:47,880
Speaker 1: refiling the case either in the plaintiffs home state or

65
00:03:47,920 --> 00:03:50,120
Speaker 1: some other states that the claimer rose out of, perhaps

66
00:03:50,160 --> 00:03:52,360
Speaker 1: where they bought the product or used the product, or

67
00:03:52,400 --> 00:03:55,520
Speaker 1: were injured by the product, or to take it to

68
00:03:55,600 --> 00:03:58,040
Speaker 1: Johnson and Johnson in J and J's home state of

69
00:03:58,080 --> 00:04:02,040
Speaker 1: New Jersey. So hour you have J and J facing

70
00:04:02,080 --> 00:04:07,080
Speaker 1: more than dal claims in state and federal courts in

71
00:04:07,120 --> 00:04:12,200
Speaker 1: the US. How has it been faring well so far?

72
00:04:12,280 --> 00:04:16,360
Speaker 1: Not so not so good. I mean, the most of

73
00:04:16,400 --> 00:04:19,680
Speaker 1: the trials had come out and plaintive favor, but of

74
00:04:19,720 --> 00:04:23,400
Speaker 1: course most of those had been in Missouri. And this

75
00:04:23,560 --> 00:04:27,800
Speaker 1: change in the forum shopping regime is um is a

76
00:04:27,880 --> 00:04:32,280
Speaker 1: real plus for Johnson and Johnson. But the big news

77
00:04:33,200 --> 00:04:35,560
Speaker 1: at the end of the summer was the California verdict

78
00:04:35,600 --> 00:04:38,839
Speaker 1: in atcha area where J and J was hit with

79
00:04:38,880 --> 00:04:42,119
Speaker 1: a four seventeen million dollar verdict in a California case.

80
00:04:42,680 --> 00:04:46,520
Speaker 1: The company is now trying to get that overturned m

81
00:04:46,760 --> 00:04:49,960
Speaker 1: and they've asked the court to either to grant judgment

82
00:04:50,000 --> 00:04:52,279
Speaker 1: as a matter of law or a new trial, and

83
00:04:52,360 --> 00:04:55,200
Speaker 1: that ought to be decided quite soon. You know. They've

84
00:04:55,240 --> 00:04:57,240
Speaker 1: been one of the ways in which j J is

85
00:04:57,360 --> 00:05:00,640
Speaker 1: attacking these cases. They're saying that although there's some scientific

86
00:05:00,680 --> 00:05:02,800
Speaker 1: evidence that's been put in that it doesn't really back

87
00:05:02,880 --> 00:05:07,080
Speaker 1: up the claim at all that the Talcolm powder has

88
00:05:07,120 --> 00:05:10,760
Speaker 1: a link to a varying cancer. How are courts treating

89
00:05:10,839 --> 00:05:14,120
Speaker 1: their legal argument about the strength of the evidence. It's

90
00:05:14,160 --> 00:05:16,839
Speaker 1: actually been quite varied. There was a new Jersey court

91
00:05:17,400 --> 00:05:20,400
Speaker 1: that said they're simply isn't the scientific evidence to back

92
00:05:20,480 --> 00:05:25,040
Speaker 1: up the plaintiff's claims, and the court excluded the plaintiff's

93
00:05:25,160 --> 00:05:29,240
Speaker 1: scientific evidence of causation um. But these other courts in

94
00:05:29,279 --> 00:05:33,800
Speaker 1: Missouri and California have have treated it differently. This is

95
00:05:33,839 --> 00:05:38,359
Speaker 1: what happens when when lawsuits get out ahead of science.

96
00:05:38,560 --> 00:05:43,279
Speaker 1: Science has the luxury of moving step by step trying

97
00:05:43,320 --> 00:05:46,560
Speaker 1: to find truth, but courts don't have that luxury. They've

98
00:05:46,600 --> 00:05:49,640
Speaker 1: got a case between a plaint defendant defendant and actually

99
00:05:49,680 --> 00:05:53,480
Speaker 1: have to decide the case based on the science has

100
00:05:53,560 --> 00:05:56,760
Speaker 1: that as it is now, and in this case, you're right,

101
00:05:56,839 --> 00:06:00,839
Speaker 1: the science is quite undeveloped and very much in dispute.

102
00:06:02,000 --> 00:06:04,960
Speaker 1: So Howard, let's talk a little bit about this is

103
00:06:04,960 --> 00:06:08,080
Speaker 1: supposed to be a Bell bell Weather cases, so they

104
00:06:08,080 --> 00:06:11,320
Speaker 1: can decide which to settle, what settlement amounts might be.

105
00:06:11,720 --> 00:06:17,039
Speaker 1: How does it stand now with all these reversals, It

106
00:06:17,120 --> 00:06:20,000
Speaker 1: does pro things up in the air a bit june On.

107
00:06:20,760 --> 00:06:23,440
Speaker 1: You're you're right that when there are when there's mass

108
00:06:23,480 --> 00:06:27,800
Speaker 1: tourt litigation pending, thousands of cases that are related, the

109
00:06:27,880 --> 00:06:31,600
Speaker 1: courts schedule these individual trials with the hope that they

110
00:06:31,600 --> 00:06:35,000
Speaker 1: will be bell weathers, that that they will provide data

111
00:06:35,040 --> 00:06:38,840
Speaker 1: points jury verdicts that the parties can then use um

112
00:06:38,880 --> 00:06:41,600
Speaker 1: to set expectations in the hope that the parties can

113
00:06:41,640 --> 00:06:45,359
Speaker 1: then negotiate some sort of global settlement um. But I

114
00:06:45,400 --> 00:06:50,040
Speaker 1: do think that the risk of reversal in the cases

115
00:06:50,080 --> 00:06:53,920
Speaker 1: so far changes the whole Um bell Weather aspect of

116
00:06:53,960 --> 00:06:57,360
Speaker 1: this and makes these verdicts somewhat less valuable. It does

117
00:06:57,400 --> 00:06:59,120
Speaker 1: seem to make it harder for them to use them

118
00:06:59,160 --> 00:07:02,240
Speaker 1: as bell Weather cases. But might it sort of make

119
00:07:02,320 --> 00:07:06,120
Speaker 1: it easier for Johnson and Johnson to settle all the

120
00:07:06,160 --> 00:07:13,560
Speaker 1: cases on a more favorable one more favorable terms. Yes, yes,

121
00:07:14,160 --> 00:07:19,800
Speaker 1: And uncertainty is generally thought to be a good motivator

122
00:07:19,920 --> 00:07:24,600
Speaker 1: for settlement. So the very fact that um that the

123
00:07:24,680 --> 00:07:27,840
Speaker 1: outcome of these cases is somewhat uncertain at this point

124
00:07:27,920 --> 00:07:31,600
Speaker 1: strengthens J and J's position. All right, Howard, it's a

125
00:07:31,640 --> 00:07:34,720
Speaker 1: pleasure to have you back on the show. That's Howard Ericson.

126
00:07:34,760 --> 00:07:37,400
Speaker 1: He's a professor at Fordham Law School. He specializes in

127
00:07:37,480 --> 00:07:41,000
Speaker 1: complex litigation. That's it for the sedition of Bloomberg Law.

128
00:07:41,040 --> 00:07:43,160
Speaker 1: We'll be back tomorrow at would bum Wall Street time

129
00:07:43,240 --> 00:07:46,040
Speaker 1: thanks to our producer David Suckerman and our technical director

130
00:07:46,120 --> 00:07:50,000
Speaker 1: Chris try Comey. Carol Master comes up next with Bloomberg Markets,

131
00:07:50,000 --> 00:07:51,560
Speaker 1: and she's here to tell us a little bit about

132
00:07:51,640 --> 00:07:54,080
Speaker 1: what's going to happen where you talking about the fed

133
00:07:54,080 --> 00:07:56,960
Speaker 1: bag book, those headlines crossing the Bloomberg in just a moment.

134
00:07:57,080 --> 00:07:59,120
Speaker 1: And then we've got to talk about robots taking over

135
00:07:59,200 --> 00:08:02,320
Speaker 1: jobs on walls. Treat you better watch out too. I

136
00:08:02,400 --> 00:08:04,360
Speaker 1: know I have to figure out what to do if

137
00:08:04,400 --> 00:08:08,280
Speaker 1: anything happens with voices of robots. That's it. This is Bloomberg.

138
00:08:09,320 --> 00:08:09,360
Speaker 1: M