For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as Ms. S.S., and her husband will be referred to as Mr. R.S.
In a recent ruling, a U.S. District Court allowed a mesothelioma victim to move her lawsuit back to California state court after several defendants tried to move it to the federal level. This means that Ms. S.S.'s case will continue in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where it was initially filed.
Ms. S.S. was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma after years of using talc-based powders. She and her husband, Mr. R.S., filed a personal injury lawsuit against several companies, including Chanel, Colgate-Palmolive, Coty, and Macy's. The lawsuit alleged that these companies sold asbestos-contaminated talc products. Asbestos is a hazardous substance that, to this day, remains the only known cause of mesothelioma. Ms. S.S.'s lawsuit included claims of negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation, and loss of consortium.
Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, two defendants reached preliminary settlements with the plaintiffs. However, before the agreements could be finalized, Longs Drug Stores submitted a notice to move the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The company raised diversity grounds as its basis for wanting the case removed to federal court. Colgate-Palmolive joined in the removal petition.
The two defendants who sought to have the case removed to federal court argued that the other defendants should be considered “nominal parties” due to the pending settlements, meaning their consent for the removal was not necessary. Generally, under federal law, every defendant who has been properly served must agree to the removal unless they are nominal parties, meaning they do not have any genuine interest in the case's outcome.
The plaintiffs opposed the removal and asked the District Court to return the case to the state court. Ms. S.S. and her husband argued that the removal was flawed since some defendants had not consented. The two also pointed out the need to resolve the case quickly due to Ms. S.S.'s serious condition and limited life expectancy. They argued that dragging the case through the federal court system would cause irreparable prejudice to Ms. S.S. In response, the attorney representing the two defendants who wanted the case to be moved to federal court argued that the two defendants who had reached a settlement with the claimants did not need to join the removal since their agreement had eliminated their interest in the case.
The District Court reviewed both arguments and sided with the plaintiffs. In her decision, the judge noted that since no final settlement had been signed and no claims had been formally released, the two defendants who had reached preliminary settlements with the plaintiffs remained active defendants. Therefore, their consent was essential for the removal to be valid. Since they had not consented, the “rule of unanimity” was not met, making the removal invalid.
The court sent the case back to the Los Angeles Superior Court, allowing litigation to proceed without further delays.
Arizona Mesothelioma Lawyers
If you or a loved one were diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact our office to speak to one of our experienced Arizona mesothelioma attorneys about your situation. Our office can help investigate your case and determine if compensation can be sought from negligent parties.
