A federal judge in Texas this month shot down bids by Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) to dismiss a pair of bellwether lawsuits in the multi-district litigation over its Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implant, setting the stage for the cases to go to trial in September.
Judge Ed Kinkeade of the U.S. District Court for Northern Texas is presiding over the MDL of more than 6,000 lawsuits filed by patients implanted with the Pinnacle device. Johnson & Johnson moved to dismiss the 1st 2 bellwether cases, Lay v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. et al. and Herlihy-Paoli v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., arguing that the Texas court lacks jurisdiction because the cases were originally filed in Montana.
J&J also filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that its various entities are holding companies for DePuy Orthopaedics and as such did not manufacture, sell, or otherwise market the Pinnacle devices, according to court documents.
Kinkeade disagreed with both premises, ruling July 18 that the evidence "is sufficient to establish minimum contacts through specific jurisdiction by the Johnson & Johnson companies’ marketing activities with respect to the Pinnacle device," according to the documents.
"The evidence shows that the Johnson & Johnson companies (1) hosted a nationwide satellite telecast to physicians all over the country, including Montana, to tout the advantages of the Pinnacle device, including representations of the benefits of metal-on-metal hip replacements and fluid film lubrication that are in issue in this case; (2) gave direction regarding advertising content and appearance for the Pinnacle device; (3) made a website available to DePuy for doctors and patients and anyone else seeking information to view advertisements about the Pinnacle device; (4) placed their name on all Pinnacle device advertising, literature, products, and packaging that contained representations that are in issue in this case and that were distributed across the country, including in Montana, for health care providers and doctors like [plaintiff’s physician] Dr. [David] Allmacher to see," Kinkeade wrote. "Plaintiffs’ claims against the Johnson & Johnson companies include fraud-based claims arising from their involvement in the alleged formulation and dissemination of a campaign of misinformation regarding the safety of the Pinnacle device."
The judge also dismissed the bid for summary judgment, ruling that the evidence presented "is sufficient to raise a fact issue with regard to the Johnson & Johnson companies’ joint liability on plaintiffs’ product liability claims against DePuy," according to the documents.
"The summary judgment evidence in this case raises fact issues that the Johnson & Johnson companies knew that DePuy was engaged in the manufacture and marketing of a defective product and that they provided assistance to DePuy in marketing that product," Kinkeade wrote. "DePuy has pointed out numerous issues with respect to plaintiffs’ claims in this case. This court finds, however, that for purposes of summary judgment, the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs raises fact issues such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for plaintiffs."
In separate rulings, Kinkeade also denied Johnson & Johnson’s motions to exclude testimony from a raft of witnesses called by the plaintiffs, the documents show.