Court Opinion

ID: 9916516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:08:59.674856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:37.613482
License: Public Domain

Fernandez v Rite Aid of N.Y., Inc
               2023 NY Slip Op 34567(U)
                   December 28, 2023
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 190139/2021
                  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. 190139/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                             SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                       NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:        HON. ADAM SILVERA                                   PART                             13
                                                                   Justice
           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----X                             INDEX NO.         190139/2021
            NICOLE FERNANDEZ,
                                                                               MOTION DATE        10/10/2023
                                             Plaintiff,
                                                                               MOTION SEQ. NO.        001
                                       -v-
            RITE AID OF NEW YORK, INC, RITE AID OF NEW YORK
            CITY, INC, WALGREEN EASTERN CO.,
            INC.,INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST
                                                                                 DECISION + ORDER ON
            TO RITE-AID., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON &
            JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,KOLMAR                                     MOTION
            LABORATORIES, INC.,

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

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
           18, 19,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36
           were read on this motion to/for                                       DISMISS

                  Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that defendants' motion to dismiss this

          action, pursuant to CPLR § 321 l(a)(4), arguing that there is a prior pending action, is denied in

          accordance with the decision below.

                  In this asbestos action, plaintiff, Nicole Fernandez, has two actions pending against

          defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. (collectively,

          defendants "J&J") for illness caused by her use of defendants' talcum powder products and

          related product liability claims. Moving defendants argue that the cases are substantially similar

          pursuant to CPLR § 321 l(a)(4), and that the instant action in New York is the later filed action

          such that it should be dismissed in favor of the earlier pending action in the District of New

          Jersey. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson

           190139/2021 FERNANDEZ, NICOLE vs. RITE AID OF NEW YORK, INC ET AL                      Page 1 of 4
           Motion No. 001

[* 1]                                                        1 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 190139/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

           Consumer Inc.' s Motion to Dismiss, p. 1-2.

                  Plaintiff opposes on the basis that she was unaware of the filing status of the New Jersey

           matter and had no indication that she was already being represented by the counsel involved in

           that matter. See Affirmation in Opposition to Defendant Johnson & Johnson's Motion to

           Dismiss, p. 2-4. Ms. Fernandez was under the impression that she did not have counsel at the

           time that she contacted plaintiffs current counsel herein, who then initiated the instant matter in

          New York. Id. Furthermore, plaintiffs counsel herein has affirmed that it has directly attempted

           to resolve the misunderstanding with prior counsel but have been unable to do so. Id.

                  Defendants J&J, along with reiterating CPLR § 321 l(a)(4), further argue that they would

           be "severely prejudiced" by the denial of this motion because "they will be forced to litigate two

          identical lawsuits in two different venues simultaneously." See Reply Memorandum of Law in

           Support of Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, p. 4.

                  The "[C]ourt has broad discretion in determining whether an action should be dismissed

           pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(4) on the ground that there is another action pending". Scottsdale Ins.

           Co. v Indemnity Ins. Corp. RRG, 110 AD3d 783, 784 (2nd Dep't 2013). In fact, CPLR

           § 321 l(a)(4) explicitly states that "the court need not dismiss upon this ground but may make

           such order as justice requires". Further, the Appellate Division has held that "[w]here there is a

           prior action pending in another State and there is a question as to whether the parties can be

           afforded full relief therein, the preferred course is to stay the New York action pending a final

           determination of the prior action". Lawler v TropWorld Casino & Entertainment Resort, 238

           AD2d 383, 383-384 (2nd Dep't 1997).

                  Here, the Court finds that plaintiff was not adequately advised of and involved in the

           New Jersey matter due to her clear misunderstanding about whether she was represented by

            190139/2021 FERNANDEZ, NICOLE vs. RITE AID OF NEW YORK, INC ET AL                     Page 2 of 4
            Motion No. 001

[* 2]                                                       2 of 4
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 190139/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                                                                           (
           counsel. Plaintiff's counsel herein has further indicated that counsel in the earlier matter have

           been uncooperative in allowing a substitution of counsel, delaying the resolution of the prior

           matter. It is axiomatic that a litigant is entitled to hire the attorney of their choice. Plaintiff has

           clearly indicated herein that she has retained counsel in this action. Plaintiff has further indicated

           that she intends to litigate only the instant matter and to dismiss the one pending in New Jersey.

           See Affirmation in Opposition, supra, p. 4. Intended dismissal of the other matter is sufficient to

           defeat defendants J&J' s motion. See cf Harvard Steel Sales, LLC v Bain, 194 AD3d 407, 408

           (1st Dep 't 2021) ("although the federal action was filed first, the subsequent dismissal of the

           federal case weighs in favor of maintaining this action"). Moreover, plaintiff has confirmed that

           no discovery has proceeded in the earlier filed action and_no steps have been taken in such earlier

           filed case after filing of the complaint which was over three years ago. This clearly demonstrates

           that defendants J&J will not be "forced to litigate two identical lawsuits" as they have not been

          required to litigate the earlier one at all, and plaintiff plans to dismiss it entirely.

                    Based on the facts presented herein and the Court's discretion under CPLR § 321 l(a)(4),

          defendants J&J's motion is denied, and the instant matter is stayed pending the dismissal of the

          New Jersey case. While moving defendants argue that a denial of the instant motion is

          prejudicial and prevents them from bringing another motion under CPLR § 321 l(a)(4), upon the

           instant case's resumption, the former matter will have been dismissed and moving defendants

          will be free to move for summary judgment or to dismiss on any other grounds they should find

          applicable.

                    Accordingly, it is

                    ORDERED that defendants J&J's motion to dismiss is denied in its entirety; and it is

          further

            190139/2021 FERNANDEZ, NICOLE vs. RITE AID OF NEW YORK, INC ET AL                         Page 3 of4
            Motion No. 001

[* 3]                                                        3 of 4
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 190139/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                  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.

                  12/28/2023
                    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

           190139/2021 FERNANDEZ, NICOLE vs. RITE AID OF NEW YORK, INC ET AL                      Page 4 of4
           Motion No. 001

                                                            4 of 4
[* 4]