EAST ST. LOUIS – One hundred and two residents of other states who piggybacked on a suit against Johnson & Johnson in the Southern District of Illinois fell off on April 14, when Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel dismissed their claims.
She found the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that plaintiffs should bring actions in forums where the activities giving rise to their claims occurred.
Attorneys Jacob Flint and Andrew Feldman of Edwardsville filed the suit in December, for ten Southern Illinois residents alleging injuries from pelvic mesh implants.
They named Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon as second defendant and asserted that defendants had significant contacts with the district and therefore subject to personal jurisdiction of the court.
They amended the complaint in January, to add 104 plaintiffs from 35 other states and six from the Central and Northern districts of Illinois.
Defendants spotted two New Jersey plaintiffs, whose common citizenship with theirs might put an end to federal jurisdiction.
Flint and Feldman amended the complaint again, to remove the New Jersey pair.
On March 12, defense counsel Sherry Knutson of Chicago moved to dismiss all 102 plaintiffs from other states for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue.
She moved to dismiss Central and Northern Illinois plaintiffs on different grounds.
On March 26, Flint responded that Rosenstengel could exercise general jurisdiction, specific personal jurisdiction, and general personal jurisdiction.
“Considering defendants have such a strong connection to the state of Illinois, this court may hear any claim against them,” Flint wrote.
He wrote that defendants had sales agents in the district, their products were in the stream of commerce in the district, and they trained physicians in the district.
He wrote that they held clinical trials in Illinois and maintained mechanical facilities at Buffalo Grove and Chicago.
He wrote that they designed the product for market in Illinois and advertised there.
He yielded ground by proposing that if Rosenstengel lacked personal jurisdiction, the appropriate remedy would be transfer as opposed to dismissal.
He requested a stay, to address transfer more fully and establish alternative venue.
Knutson opposed a stay on April 9, writing that it would only delay proceedings for plaintiffs who are properly before the court.
She wrote that Rosenstengel shouldn’t cure errors by engaging in work plaintiffs should have done before suing.
She wrote that it was the duty of plaintiffs and their counsel to determine where to get personal jurisdiction before a statute of limitation ran.
Rosenstengel agreed that statutes of limitations might inhibit plaintiffs if she dismissed them.
She found courts tend to favor transfer where a plaintiff believed venue was in good faith and reasonable.
“But the court does not see any reasonable basis for plaintiffs’ belief that jurisdiction and venue were proper in this district,” Rosenstengel wrote.
“Rather, case law on both issues seem to clearly show that this district was not the proper choice.”
She wrote that plaintiffs weren’t prepared even to identify what jurisdictions were appropriate transferees.
She wrote that she would proceed solely with initial plaintiffs Debra Hyde of Wood River, Diane Zappia of Highland, Brandon Baity and Kevin Baity of Centralia, Tamara Daily of Macedonia, Carrie Dodson of St. Elmo, Patricia Milligan and Larry Milligan of Johnston City, and April Ray and Steven Ray of Herrin.
She wrote that she’d decide later whether to hold separate trials.