Case in other court:

Track this case

Case Number:

3:16-md-02738

Court:

New Jersey

Nature of Suit:

367 Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability

Multi Party Litigation:

Multi-district Litigation

Judge:

Judge Michael A. Shipp

Firms

Companies

Government Agencies

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)

Sectors & Industries:

July 02, 2024
Beasley Allen Slams J&J's DQ Bid 'Check-Up' In Talc Tort

The Beasley Allen Law Firm and Johnson & Johnson continue to spar over the firm and attorney Andy Birchfield's role in long-running federal and state mass torts over talcum powder injuries, with the firm calling out J&J on Tuesday for "prodding" the New Jersey courts to boot the lawyers from the litigation.
June 18, 2024
J&J Fights Law Firm's Bid To Nix Subpoenas In Talc Brawl

Information about the Beasley Allen Law Firm's litigation funding and settlement communications is relevant and necessary to resolving long-running multidistrict litigation over Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products and so should be turned over, the pharmaceutical giant has told a New Jersey federal court.
June 06, 2024
Law Firm Says Axe 'Draconian' J&J Subpoena In Talc Claim

A Mississippi plaintiffs firm urged a New Jersey federal court on Thursday to quash a subpoena served by Johnson & Johnson requesting that the firm turn over documents related to litigation funding and its communication with media outlets, calling the subpoena "draconian" and improper as the firm is not a party to the pharmaceutical giant's current personal injury litigation surrounding its talcum powder products.
May 31, 2024
Beasley Allen Wants J&J Subpoenas Nixed Amid Ethics Fight

The Beasley Allen Law Firm and a plaintiff steering committee in the Johnson & Johnson talc litigation blasted subpoenas directed at the firm and others aimed at turning up evidence of an alleged scheme to muster opposition to J&J's latest $6.5 billion bankruptcy plan.
May 28, 2024
Beasley Allen, J&J Trade Barbs Over DQ Bid In Talc Litigation

Johnson & Johnson and the Beasley Allen Law Firm have accused each other by turns of "gamesmanship" and "unscrupulous conduct" in New Jersey courts in a fight over whether the firm should be disqualified from talcum powder litigation for allegedly collaborating in secret with a former J&J outside counsel.
May 23, 2024
J&J Loses Expedited Bid For Beasley Allen Docs In Talc MDL

Johnson & Johnson has lost its bid in New Jersey federal court to have the Beasley Allen Law Firm quickly produce documents related to what J&J said seems to be an "intentional effort" by the firm to "bias the vote" against a proposed $6.5 billion reorganization plan for its talc subsidiary.
May 20, 2024
J&J Says Beasley Allen Looking To 'Bias' Vote On $6.5B Plan

Johnson & Johnson's bankrupt talc unit accused the Beasley Allen Law Firm of attempting to intentionally "bias" the vote against its recently announced proposal to pay out $6.5 billion in a prepackaged reorganization plan to resolve claims that its talc-based baby powder causes ovarian cancer.
March 25, 2024
J&J Exec 'Shocked' Over Atty's Ties With Talc Plaintiffs

Johnson & Johnson's vice president of litigation said on Monday he was "utterly shocked and appalled" upon learning an attorney who served as the company's outside counsel was working with its adversary Beasley Allen Law Firm and one of its attorneys in litigation over the alleged link between the company's talcum powder products and ovarian cancer.
December 20, 2023
Beasley Allen Atty Slams J&J's 'Locker-Room Brawl' DQ Bid

Beasley Allen Law Firm and one of its veteran plaintiffs' attorneys have hit back at Johnson & Johnson's attempt to disqualify them from multidistrict litigation over the alleged link between the company's talcum powder products and ovarian cancer, denying that they collected privileged information from a former J&J attorney.
June 17, 2021
Cosmetics Trade Group Escapes J&J Asbestos-In-Talc MDL

New Jersey's top federal judge has tossed claims against a nonprofit cosmetics trade association in multidistrict litigation over the alleged link between Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products and ovarian cancer, finding that the group does not have a "legal duty to consumers" to make sure the products are safe.