Sondra Scott was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma after years of exposure to talc-based powders used by her and her husband, Richard. The couple filed a personal injury claim against multiple companies in Los Angeles County Superior Court, but some defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds. The Scotts petitioned to have the case returned to the local court, noting that the removal had not been approved by defendants with whom they’d already negotiated preliminary settlement terms. The judges of the United States District Court for the Central District of California agreed.
Mesothelioma Blamed on Cosmetic Talc Products
The mesothelioma victim’s original complaint was filed earlier this year. It accused Colgate-Palmolive, Coty, Chanel, Gold Bond, L’Oréal, Macy’s, and others of negligence, strict liability, misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and loss of consortium, asserting that they had sold asbestos-contaminated talc products.
Though two of the defendants — Chanel and Christian Dior — quickly reached settlements in principle with the mesothelioma victim, Longs Drug Stores filed to move the case to federal court, arguing that the removal was appropriate due to diversity. Colgate-Palmolive joined in the application, with both companies claiming that removal did not require approval from Chanel and Christian Dior because their pending settlement agreements made them “nominal,” and therefore not included in a removal action’s legal requirement of unanimous consent.
Mesothelioma Victim Requests that Case be Returned to State Court
The mesothelioma victim and her husband responded to the removal by asking the District Court to return the case to state court. They argued that the removal was defective because not all defendants had consented, and that delay would cause irreparable prejudice to Ms. Scott, who is seriously ill and may succumb to her disease soon.
In response, the attorney representing Longs Drug Stores and Colgate-Palmolive argued that the two defendants with whom plaintiffs had reached settlements in principle did not need to join in the removal because their agreements had eliminated their interest in the case. The Court rejected this argument, noting that no binding settlement agreements had been signed and no claims had been released. Therefore, the consent of those defendants was still required.
District Court Agrees with Mesothelioma Victim
There are complex rules regarding jurisdiction over mesothelioma and other personal injury cases. When it comes to removing a claim from state to federal court, the law requires that all properly joined and served defendants agree to removal unless they are nominal parties. In summarizing the court’s decision, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong wrote that Chanel and Christian Dior were not nominal defendants, meaning the “rule of unanimity” had not been satisfied. Without unanimous consent, federal jurisdiction was lacking, and removal of the case to the district court had been inappropriate.
Sondra Scott’s mesothelioma claim against multiple cosmetic and retail companies will now be able to proceed in Los Angeles Superior Court. The district court’s decision makes clear how important it is to know and follow the rules surrounding jurisdiction.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease and you need guidance, call the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net today at 1-800-692-8608.
