Pecos River Talc LLC v. Emory
4:24-cv-00075
E.D. Va.Apr 30, 2025Background
- Defendants (Emory, Maddox, Kradin) published a scientific article linking cosmetic talc to cases of mesothelioma, identifying 75 subjects with no known asbestos exposure other than cosmetic talc.
- Johnson & Johnson (through a subsidiary, Pecos River Talc LLC) brought claims against the authors, arguing these statements disparaged its talc products.
- The Court dismissed all but one claim (product disparagement under New Jersey law), allowing that claim to proceed.
- Defendants moved for reconsideration of the decision, arguing that the remaining claim should also be dismissed.
- Defendants also sought a show cause hearing for early dismissal under New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law, even though the deadline for such relief had long passed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether product disparagement requires explicit imputation of fraud or dishonesty | J&J: No such requirement under NJ law; only false and damaging statements about product needed | Emory: Product disparagement must explicitly impute fraud, deceit or dishonesty | The Court held the 'explicit imputation' standard applies only to defamation, not product disparagement; plaintiff's claim survives |
| Whether the complaint alleges statements "about" J&J's products | J&J: Their market dominance and specific references plausibly link the statements to their products | Emory: Statements were about cosmetic talc generally, not directly about J&J | Court found it plausible that audiences would connect the statements to J&J products, satisfying the 'about' element |
| Good cause for late anti-SLAPP motion | N/A | Defendants: Complexity and strategic reassessment justify delay | Court: Delay was strategic, not inadvertent, and granting relief would be prejudicial and contrary to anti-SLAPP timing purpose |
| Entitlement to anti-SLAPP hearing and stay | N/A | Defendants: Should have anti-SLAPP hearing and litigation should be stayed | Denied; no good cause for late filing, stay request denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publishing Co., 516 A.2d 220 (N.J. 1986) (defining distinction between defamation and product disparagement under New Jersey law)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (choice-of-law rules in diversity actions)
- Jones v. R.S. Jones & Assocs., 431 S.E.2d 33 (Va. 1993) (place of the wrong governs tort law in Virginia)
- Dijkstra v. Westerink, 401 A.2d 1118 (N.J. App. 1979) (statement need not name plaintiff if audience understands reference)
- Karcher v. Philadelphia Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 116 A.2d 1 (N.J. 1955) (attorney’s strategic decisions not generally grounds for excusable neglect)