Fuqua v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
926 F. Supp. 2d 538
D.N.J.2013Background
- Twenty-four federal actions removed from New Jersey state court involve wrongful-death claims arising from decedents’ exposure to chemicals from BMS’s New Brunswick facility.
- All wrongful-death claims were filed more than two years after the decedents’ deaths, triggering the statute of limitations under N.J.S.A. 2A:31-3.
- Plaintiffs urge discovery rule and other equitable tolling doctrines to extend the limitations period.
- New Jersey state court in In re Bristol-Myers recognized potential equitable tolling in certain misconduct circumstances but did not definitively resolve discovery-rule tolling for WDA claims.
- This court rejects the discovery rule as a tolling mechanism, considers fraudulent-concealment tolling, and dismissal is without prejudice, with permission to amend if warranted.
- State court mass tort actions and related decisions influence, but do not compel, this federal outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery rule tolls the WDA statute of limitations | BMS discovery rule should toll | WDA limitations run from death; discovery rule does not apply | Discovery rule does not toll the WDA statute of limitations |
| Whether equitable tolling or fraudulent concealment can save untimely claims | Equitable tolling should apply due to defendants’ concealment | No applicable tolling; concealment pleadings inadequate | Fraudulent concealment tolling not established; equitable tolling not supported; claims dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether the discovery rule applies in a fixed-event statute context | Discovery rule should apply to toll a fixed event statute | Fixed-event trigger (death) limits tolling; rule inapplicable | Discovery rule not applicable to toll the fixed-event Wrongful Death Act provision |
| Whether plaintiffs adequately pled fraudulent concealment under Rule 9(b) | Concealment allegations sufficient to toll | Pleading fails to meet Rule 9(b) specificity | Fraudulent-concealment pleadings insufficient; tolling not warranted; may amend later |
| Whether the court should permit amendment if facts emerge | Amend to plead adequate tolling facts | Amendment would be inappropriate without proper pleading | If sufficient facts arise, plaintiffs may move to amend; court will evaluate under standards above |
Key Cases Cited
- LaFage v. Jani, 166 N.J. 412 (N.J. 2001) (discovery rule distinction and tolling history under WDA)
- Negron v. Llarena, 156 N.J. 296 (N.J. 1998) (substantial compliance; tolling through equitable doctrines)
- Bernosskie v. Zarinsky, 344 N.J. Super. 160 (N.J. App. Div. 2001) (discovery rule does not toll fixed-event wrongful-death limitations)
- Presslaff v. Robins, 168 N.J. Super. 543 (N.J. App. Div. 1979) (discovery rule not applicable to WDA timing)
- Hernandez v. St. James Hosp., 214 N.J. Super. 538 (N.J. App. Div. 1986) (context of wrongful death limitations and tolling)
- Trinity Church v. Lawson-Bell, 394 N.J. Super. 159 (N.J. App. Div. 2007) (distinguishes discovery rule from estoppel/tolling concepts)