On July 29, U.S. District Judge George Wu of the Central District of California issued a tentative warning stating that he would dismiss the case brought under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly referred to as Proposition 65 (Prop 65), involving Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
The lawsuit was brought by accusing plaintiffs’ lawyer Mark Lanier, of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston over the health risks of J&J's talcum powder, who later filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The motion was filed to cite newly discovered evidence and add other defendants, to be followed by the filing of a new lawsuit.
J&J has objected as it was looking forward to having the court ruled that its baby powder is safe and does not require a cancer warning as the FDA has twice decided. This is an unusual twist for the defendants to not go along with plaintiffs who want their cases dismissed.
Businesses need to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” before exposing consumers to carcinogens and other toxins as per Prop 65 defined in California.
More than 14,000 Talcum Powder and Shower-to-Shower lawsuits are consolidated under multidistrict litigation MDL No. 2738; In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. Lawsuits are also pending in a coordinated California proceeding under Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 4877.
