Pharmaceutical firms Johnson and Johnson and Bausch Health each filed a motion requesting the court make a final dismissal on claims purporting both companies omitted the presence of talc powder in their products. J&J and Baush argued that these fifth claims filed by the plaintiffs are subject to dismissal, on the grounds that the amendments do not match the directions provided by California US District Judge Dana M. Sabar.
Judge Sabar instructed the plaintiffs during the dismissal of the third complaint the claims would need to specifically address what sections of Proposition 65 were being used to support the amended motion. The complaint alleges J&J and Baush broke the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising Law in their refusal to reveal to consumers that asbestos was found in each companies talc products. Both J&J and Baush contend that the amended compliant only included testimony deemed as "unsupported extrapolation" used in a different case, without explicitly charging that the talc products from either company are in fact unsafe. In addition, each company stated that the plaintiffs were using unreliable older ads in conjunction with asserting they were being exposed to marketing claims.
J&J and Baush asserted that the plaintiff's claim of false advertising was not supported in their motion, as both litigations only claimed to have received economic injury, not physical injury. Both companies allege that as the complaint was filed only after using their products for a significant amount of time, it would imply each plaintiff did suffer any injuries, as claimed in in their lawsuit.
To read the full article, please click here.
To read the Johnson & Johnson Motion, please click here.
To read the Bausch Motion, please click here.