Cabibi v. Johnson & Johnson

Product liability

Los Angeles County

Superior Court Judge Rafael A. Ongkeko

Plaintiffs' lawyers: Simon Greenstone Panatier PC, David C. Greenstone, Stuart J. Purdy, Marissa Langhoff

Defense attorneys: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Kimberly O. Branscome, Jay L. Bhimani, Benjamin M. Sadunmes

There are about 2,000 cases nationwide concerning the link between talc and mesothelioma, an aggressive form of cancer, but Cabibi v. Johnson & Johnson BC665257 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Jun. 15, 2017) clearly falls into a specific subset of the lawsuits, the plaintiff's attorney said.

"One of the common defenses is to blame other sources of asbestos exposure," explained David C. Greenstone, a managing shareholder at Simon Greenstone Panatier, PC. "In this case, they blamed the fact that she [the plaintiff] lived in a part of Los Angeles called South Gate."

The plaintiffs, Nancy Cabibi and her husband Phil, alleged she contracted mesothelioma from decades of using Johnson & Johnson's baby powder. A report released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in October said it found asbestos in a bottle of talc, triggering a recall.

Stuart Purdy

The part of South Gate that Cabibi lived in was "kind of an industrial area," Greenstone said, so the defense alleged Cabibi had been exposed to asbestos from living in the city.

"We spent a long time showing the jury how that was not really feasible," he said. "Even if she had some, it was just added to her total dose of exposure."

At trial, Greenstone's team presented evidence showing there wasn't an increased cancer cluster in South Gate as well as a fiber burden analysis of Cabibi, which showed the type of asbestos lodged in her body tissue "matched precisely" what had been found in Johnson & Johnson's baby powder.

A jury found Johnson & Johnson's products contained a "manufacturing defect" and assigned the company 67% of the blame for Cabibi's mesothelioma. The September verdict awarded Cabibi $40 million in damages.

The defense filed motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but Judge Ann I. Jones denied both. Eventually, the Jones reduced the damages to $17.5 million, and after the plaintiff's apportionment of fault was taken into account, the award was further reduced to $12 million. "We were very gratified that this jury gave so much time and attention to this case. They sat in jury deliberations for six days -- I've never had a jury deliberation take that long," Greenstone said. "If this verdict can help raise public awareness and help hold Johnson & Johnson accountable so that they stop doing this, then I think that's the best outcome of all."

Attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis LLP, who represented the defendant, did not respond to requests for comment. The firm filed an appeal in January.

-- Jessica Mach