Michael Blaes v. Johnson & Johnson
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9300
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael Blaes sued Johnson & Johnson and others in Missouri state court alleging talcum-powder caused his wife’s ovarian cancer; defendants removed to federal court.
- After two years of litigation (24 depositions, Daubert and other pretrial rulings) the district court set a jury trial originally for March 2016, later moved to July 2016.
- A large plaintiffs’ verdict in a St. Louis multi‑plaintiff talc case (Fox) and other pending talc trials prompted scheduling conflicts and motions to continue.
- Blaes moved to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice and stated in reply that he intended to refile and consolidate in St. Louis state court (Swann). Defendants opposed, arguing forum shopping and requesting costs/fees as a condition.
- The district court granted dismissal without prejudice, finding refiling and consolidation in Swann likely and that dismissal would not waste judicial resources or prejudice defendants. The court did not impose conditions.
- The appellate court affirmed the dismissal as within the district court’s discretion but reversed and remanded for the district court to analyze whether costs and fees should be awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal without prejudice was an abuse of discretion | Blaes: dismissal appropriate to refile/ consolidate in Swann for efficiency and earlier trial | Defendants: dismissal wastes two years of work, prejudices defendants, and is forum shopping to avoid adverse rulings | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in allowing dismissal given stage of case, overlapping evidence, and scheduling realities |
| Whether the district court properly considered forum‑shopping concerns | Blaes: stated reason (in reply) was legitimate efficiency—refile and consolidate | Defendants: true motive was to escape unfavorable Daubert rulings and federal forum | Affirmed: appellate court found district court implicitly considered parties’ arguments and did not abuse discretion in concluding purpose was proper (but concurrence disagreed) |
| Whether it was improper to rely on reasons raised first in plaintiff’s reply brief | Blaes: reply clarified intent in response to defendants’ opposition | Defendants: reply introduced the core justification too late | Held: not improper to consider reply where it responded to defendants’ arguments; district court did not abuse discretion in doing so |
| Whether dismissal should have been conditioned on payment of defendants’ costs and fees | Blaes: no obligation to pay; dismissal should be without condition | Defendants: two years of litigation and pretrial rulings warrant awarding costs/fees as condition | Reversed and remanded: appellate court held the district court should have analyzed whether costs/fees were warranted and, if so, set amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Donner v. Alcoa, Inc., 709 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2013) (standards for reviewing voluntary dismissal and factors court should consider)
- Kern v. TXO Production Corp., 738 F.2d 968 (8th Cir. 1984) (court may condition dismissal on defendant’s costs and fees; weight of litigation stage)
- Thatcher v. Hanover Ins. Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 1212 (8th Cir. 2011) (dismissal improper when used to evade federal jurisdiction or seek favorable forum)
- Mullen v. Heinkel Filtering Sys., Inc., 770 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2014) (effort expended and discovery posture inform whether dismissal is appropriate)