Court Opinion

ID: 9960248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 20:07:33.174842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:19.248491
License: Public Domain

Tippin v 3M Co.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31235(U)
                     April 10, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 190062/2021
                  Judge: Adam Silvera
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 190062/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1334                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

                            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                      NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:       HON. ADAM SILVERA                               PART                              13
                                                                Justice
           ------------------------------------------X
                                                                          INDEX NO.          190062/2021
            COREY G. TIPPIN,
                                                                          MOTION DATE         01/23/2024
                                               Plaintiff,
                                                                          MOTION SEQ. NO. - - -018
                                                                                                ---
                                       - V -

            3M COMPANY, ALCAT, INCORPORATED, AMERICAN
            INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, AVON PRODUCTS,
            INC.,BOURJOIS, LTD, BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA,
            INC, BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES, LLC,BRISTOL-MYERS
            SQUIBB COMPANY, CHANEL, INC.,CHATTEM,
            INC.,COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, COTY
            INC.,GLAMOUR INDUSTRIES CO., JOHNSON &
            JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
            INC.,KERR CORPORATION, KRYOLAN CORPORATION,
            L'OREAL USA, INC.,MAX FACTOR CO.,
            INC.,MAYBELLINE, INC.,PFIZER INC.,R.T. VANDERBILT
            HOLDING COMPANY, INC.,REVLON, INC.,THE
            NESLEMUR COMPANY, UNION CARBIDE
            CORPORATION, VANDERBILT MINERALS,
            LLC,WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC.,YVES SAINT
                                                                            DECISION + ORDER ON
            LAURENT AMERICA, INC.,BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC.
            IND. AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE GOLD
                                                                                   MOTION
            BOND STERILIZING POWDER COMPANY, A/KIA THE
            GOLD BOND COMPANY, BLOCK DRUG CORPORATION
            IND. AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE GOLD
            BOND STERILIZING POWDER COMPANY, A/KIA THE
            GOLD BOND COMPANY, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
            INC.,INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST
            TO JOHNSON & JOHNSON SUBSIDIARIES NAMED
            JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.,JOHNSON &
            JOHNSON HOLDCO (NA) INC.,F/KIA JOHNSON &
            JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.,KENVUE
             INC.,INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-ININTEREST
            TO JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.,LTL
            MANAGEMENT LLC

                                               Defendant.
                              ---·-------------------------------X

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 018) 1083, 1084, 1085,
           1086, 1087, 1088, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140,
           1141, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1146, 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1156,
           1157, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172,
           1173, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1184
           were read on this motion to/for                                   DISMISS

            190062/2021 TIPPIN, COREY G. vs. 3M COMPANY                                       Page 1 of 5
            Motion No. 018

                                                            1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 190062/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1334                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

                   Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that defendants Johnson & Johnson Holdco

           (NA) Inc. ("Holdco") and Kenvue Inc.' s ("Kenvue") motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR

           321 l(a)(l) and 321 l(a)(7) is denied. Defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Janssen")

           unopposed motion is granted.

                   Defendants Holdco and Kenvue argue both that (1) Texas law should apply, and that (2)

           both Holdco and Kenvue possess no successor liability regarding talc from Johnson & Johnson's

           consumer division. See Defendants Johnson & Johnson Holdco (NA) Inc., Janssen

           Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Kenvue Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Support of Dismissal, p. 7-11.

           Moving defendants state that Texas law would govern the assignment of liabilities to entities

           created pursuant to the Texas divisional merger and that this complies with New York choice of

           law provisions. Id. Defendants further argue that even under New York law, the "de facto

           merger" and "mere continuation" doctrines fail to apply to them, and thus, fail to import any

           successor liability. Id.

                   In opposition, plaintiff outlines the history of moving defendants' corporate restructuring

           and creation, co-defendant's multiple attempted bankruptcy proceedings, as well as an abundant

           of facts contributing to "de facto merger" and "mere continuance" analyses to support their

           theory of successor liability. See Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Johnson &

           Johnson Holdco (NA) Inc. and Kenvue's Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended

           Compalint [sic] p. 3-15. Specifically, plaintiff argues that none of defendants' entities are

           incorporated in Texas and that Texas has no interest in the outcome of the instant litigation. Id.

           Moving defendants reply, reiterating that Texas law should apply and that no talc liability has

           been transferred to them.

            190062/2021 TIPPIN, COREY G. vs. 3M COMPANY                                           Page 2 of 5
            Motion No. 018

                                                          2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 190062/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1334                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

                  Pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l), "[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more

           causes of action asserted against him on the ground that: (1) a defense is founded upon

           documentary evidence". Additionally, on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7), the

           movant has the burden to demonstrate that, based upon the four comers of the complaint liberally

           construed in favor of the plaintiff, the pleading states no legally cognizable cause of action. See

           Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 (1994). A motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to

           state a cause of action "will generally depend upon whether or not there was substantial

           compliance with CPLR 3013." Catli v Lindenman, 40 AD2d 714, 715 (2d Dep't 1972). If the

           allegations are not "sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions

           intended to be proved and the material element of each cause of action", the cause of action will

           be dismissed. See Catli, 40 AD2d at 715. CPLR 3013 provides that "[s]tatements in a pleading

           shall be sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions,

           occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material

           elements of each cause of action or defense."

                   Preliminarily, the Court notes that moving defendants' reliance on CPLR 321 l(a)(l) fails

           as the Texas divisional merger documents do not "conclusively establish a defense as a matter of

           law." Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co., 98 NY2d 314,326 (2002). According to moving

           defendants, the merger plan states that L TL Management bore the sole responsibility for talc

           liability of Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. Nevertheless, such document is not a total defense

           to the instant action. Moving defendants argue that New York applies a choice of law approach

           for successor liability which holds that the law of the state of incorporation governs. However,

           "[i]n the context of tort law, New York utilizes interest analysis to determine which of two

           competing jurisdictions has the greater interest in having its law applied in the litigation. The

            190062/2021 TIPPIN, COREY G. vs. 3M COMPANY                                             Page 3 of 5
            Motion No. 018

[* 3]                                                       3 of 5
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 190062/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1334                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

           greater interest is determined by an evaluation of the facts or contacts which relate to the purpose

           of the particular law in conflict. Two separate inquiries are thereby required to determine the

           greater interest: (1) what are the significant contacts and in which jurisdiction are they located;

           and, (2) whether the purpose of the law is to regulate conduct or allocate loss." Padula v Lilarn

           Properties Corp., 84 NY2d 519,521 (1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted). "If

           conflicting conduct-regulating laws are at issue, the law of the jurisdiction where the tort

           occurred will generally apply because that jurisdiction has the greatest interest in regulating

           behavior within its borders." Id. at 522.

                  The Court of Appeals has addressed the above standard in the corporate context

           regarding contracts and liability insurance issues. "In the context of liability insurance contracts,

           the jurisdiction with the most 'significant relationship to the transaction and the parties' will

           generally be the jurisdiction 'which the parties understood was to be the principal location of the

           insured risk ... unless with respect to the particular issue, some other Ourisdiction] has a more

           significant relationship"'. In re Liquidation of Midland Ins. Co., 16 NY3d 536, 544 (2011).

           Additionally, the Appellate Division, First Department, has held that "the law of the jurisdiction

           where the tort occurred will generally apply". Devore v Pfizer, Inc., 58 AD3d 138, 141 (1 st Dep't

           2008)(intemal citations omitted).

                   Here, there is no basis for Texas law to apply as moving defendants are not incorporated

           or domiciled in Texas, nor is Texas the state of "the locus of the tort" or the forum where the

           transactions incurring liability occurred. As such, Texas has no interest in the outcome of the

           instant action, and further has no interest in regulating behavior associated with the allegations

           herein. As to establishing successor liability under New York law, plaintiff has provided details

            190062/2021 TIPPIN, COREY G. vs. 3M COMPANY                                            Page 4 of 5
            Motion No. 018

[* 4]                                                      4 of 5
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 190062/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1334                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

           sufficient to demonstrate that a cause of action was pled such that dismissal of this action is

           denied. See Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Opposition, supra, at p. 6-13.

                     Accordingly, it is

                     ORDERED that defendant Janssen's unopposed motion to dismiss is granted; and it is

           further

                     ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed in its entirety against defendant Janssen with

           costs and disbursement to said defendant as taxed by the Clerk of the Court, and the Clerk is

           directed to enter judgment accordingly in favor of said defendant only; and it is further

                     ORDERED that the action is severed and continued against the remaining defendants;

           and it is further

                     ORDERED that defendants Holdco and Kenvue's motion to dismiss is denied in its

           entirety; and it is further

                     ORDERED that within 30 days of entry plaintiff shall serve all parties with a copy of this

           Decision/Order with notice of entry.

                     This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

                                                                                                       I

                     04/10/2024
                       DATE                                                       ADAM SILVERA, J.S.C.

                                      ~
            CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED         0    DENIED    GRANTED IN PART         □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN     FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

            190062/2021 TIPPIN, COREY G. vs. 3M COMPANY                                            Page 5 of 5
            Motion No. 018

                                                              5 of 5
[* 5]