Subject: Chemical Products

Solving the Culpable Co-Defendant Problem: An Update on Preserving Your Client’s Defenses after a Culpable Co-Defendant Files a Motion for Summary Judgment in California State Court

Share

California appellate courts have recently provided much needed clarity for defendants wishing to preserve the ability to attribute fault to a potentially culpable co-defendant seeking summary judgment. We previously addressed this issue in a 2021 blog post, highlighting the uncertainty facing defense counsel where granting summary judgment to a co-defendant would preclude an empty chair defense. Two published 2025 decisions now confirm that defendants can oppose a co-defendant’s summary judgment motion directly with no cross-complaint required.

This is a rare and tricky situation. Defendants in multiparty litigation often share interests. Opposing a co-defendant’s motion can inflate costs, strain relationships, and ultimately benefit plaintiffs. But sometimes preserving the ability to attribute fault to a co-defendant is necessary to protect your client.

Continue reading “Solving the Culpable Co-Defendant Problem: An Update on Preserving Your Client’s Defenses after a Culpable Co-Defendant Files a Motion for Summary Judgment in California State Court”

New York’s Beauty Justice Act: Sweeping Changes Proposed for Cosmetics and Personal Care Products

Share

New York lawmakers are advancing the Beauty Justice Act, one of the most comprehensive state-level efforts in the country to regulate cosmetics and personal care products. For in-house counsel at cosmetics and personal care companies, the bill is worth tracking now because it could affect product formulation, supplier oversight, labeling, and litigation risk well before any compliance deadline. The bill responds to growing concerns over consumer exposure to chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption, reproductive harm, allergies, and other health risks. Supporters argue that current federal law, including the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA), does not go far enough. Framed as both a public health and environmental justice measure, the legislation aims to protect consumers in vulnerable communities disproportionately exposed to these products.

  1. Background

    The Beauty Justice Act remains pending before the New York Legislature; if enacted, its core product restrictions would apply beginning January 1, 2029. The bill would prohibit cosmetics and personal care products sold in New York from containing intentionally added chemicals on the bill’s restricted substances list. It would also require companies to evaluate whether ingredients listed as “fragrance,” “flavor,” “colorant,” or other functional classifications contain restricted chemicals, comply with contaminant thresholds such as lead limits, and monitor Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) rulemaking that may add substances to the restricted list over time. The bill targets numerous chemicals that have already faced scrutiny in other jurisdictions and regulatory frameworks, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), parabens, phthalates, certain dyes, and preservatives.

    Continue reading “New York’s Beauty Justice Act: Sweeping Changes Proposed for Cosmetics and Personal Care Products”

Interplay Between Statutes of Repose and Statutes of Limitations in Latent Disease Exposure Claims

Share

As toxic tort claims alleging chronic illness from alleged chemical exposure continue to rise nationwide, the recent Kansas federal court decision in Jefferies v. Harcros Chemicals Inc., 2026 WL 958172, (April 9, 2026), highlights the power of statutes of repose, which can bar latent disease claims, even when the injury is discovered decades after exposure.

Case Background

In Jefferies, plaintiffs living near the defendant’s chemical manufacturing facility alleged that years of ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions caused cancer and miscarriages, some dating back decades. However, the Kansas statute of repose imposes a strict 10-year cutoff: No claim may proceed for exposures more than 10 years before suit, regardless of when the injury came to light. Seizing on this statute, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred. Agreeing with the defendants, the court rejected arguments that the discovery rule, ongoing emissions, and a continuing duty to warn tolled the statute of repose, emphasizing that the statute is a “general grant of immunity” that abolishes claims arising outside its window.

Continue reading “Interplay Between Statutes of Repose and Statutes of Limitations in Latent Disease Exposure Claims”

Significant Drug & Device Developments of 2025

Share

As we welcome the new year, it is time to reflect on some of the most significant legal developments in the drug and device space in 2025.

1. Navigating a New Skepticism in Science

Not long ago, the average American likely could not name the U.S. secretary of health and human services. Yet, following this year’s change in administration and major shakeup in the regulatory landscape, skepticism in science has become the elephant in the room for anyone working in the drug and device sphere. Practitioners should start thinking about how to present scientific evidence to juries in 2026 as the old norms may no longer apply.

Read the full article on the Faegre Drinker website.

Same Song, Different Verse — Causation Experts for Second Group of Bellwether Plaintiffs Excluded for Same Reason as First Group’s Expert in In re Deepwater Horizon BELO Cases

Share

Multidistrict litigation is meant to “promote the just and efficient conduct” of actions “involving one or more common questions of fact” by transferring those actions to a single district court “for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). In MDLs involving alleged physical injury or illness caused by a product, one “common question of fact” is general causation. Each plaintiff in the MDL must prove that the product is capable of causing the injury or illness. We think it is usually — if not always — most “just and efficient” to address general causation on an MDL-wide basis as early as practicable. Some courts disagree, testing general causation initially on just a subset of plaintiffs in the MDL; when those efforts fail, other plaintiffs may be permitted to try again, perhaps with new general causation experts. But the plaintiffs’ second attempt to establish general causation often fails to remedy the problems that doomed the first attempt (as we have discussed before), merely amplifying costs for both parties before reaching the same result. The In re Deepwater Horizon BELO (Back-End Litigation Option) Cases litigation, while not formally centralized as an MDL itself, provides another example. In re Deepwater Horizon BELO Cases, 119 F.4th 937 (11th Cir. 2024).

Continue reading “Same Song, Different Verse — Causation Experts for Second Group of Bellwether Plaintiffs Excluded for Same Reason as First Group’s Expert in In re Deepwater Horizon BELO Cases“

Expert’s Results-Driven Methodology Leads to Exclusion and Summary Judgment in Paraquat MDL

Share

An expert witness is not supposed to pick a desired result and then reverse engineer inputs and methods that reach that result.  As the Ninth Circuit observed 30 years ago, “[c]oming to a firm conclusion first and then doing research to support it is the antithesis of [the scientific] method.”  Claar v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 29 F.3d 499, 502-03 (9th Cir. 1994).  A recent opinion from the Southern District of Illinois offers a fine example of an expert with a results-driven approach and a court that called him out on it.

In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, 2024 WL 1659687 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2024), arises from a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) in which the plaintiffs claim to have developed Parkinson’s disease as a result of exposure to an herbicide, paraquat.  Four plaintiffs whose cases had been chosen for the MDL’s first trials offered a statistician (the parties disputed whether he also qualified as an epidemiologist) as their sole expert to establish general causation.  He had a difficult task, as no peer-reviewed literature established a link between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease.  Indeed, when the court asked the plaintiffs to identify such literature, the plaintiffs could cite only a single opinion article.  That article had been shared with another of the plaintiffs’ experts before it was published, leading the court to conclude in deciding a prior discovery dispute that there was reason to investigate “whether counsel for the MDL plaintiffs, their experts, or other third parties may have influenced the contents of the article for the benefit of one side in the MDL.”  2023 WL 8372819 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2023).

Continue reading “Expert’s Results-Driven Methodology Leads to Exclusion and Summary Judgment in Paraquat MDL”