Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

Case in other court:

Track this case

Case overview

Case Number:

3:16-md-02738

Court:

New Jersey

Nature of Suit:

367 Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability

Multi Party Litigation:

Multi-district Litigation

Judge:

Judge Michael A. Shipp

Firms

Companies

Government Agencies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. July 29, 2025

    Seeger Weiss Named Lead Negotiation Counsel In J&J MDL

    A New Jersey federal judge overseeing long-running multidistrict federal litigation against Johnson & Johnson over its talcum powder products has appointed Christopher A. Seeger of Seeger Weiss LLP to lead a negotiation team to guide plaintiffs through settlement talks.

  2. July 28, 2025

    J&J Loses Bid To Probe Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Funding

    A special master found Monday there is no reason to believe third-party funders are influencing Beasley Allen Law Firm's decisions in a massive talc litigation in New Jersey, defeating a subpoena from Johnson & Johnson digging into alleged third-party litigation funding.

  3. July 25, 2025

    Top Immigration Cases Of 2025: Midyear Report

    Federal courts repeatedly rebuffed key pillars of President Donald Trump's immigration policy during the first half of the year, with district courts halting efforts to curtail birthright citizenship, restrict asylum at the southern border and deport noncitizens without notice. Law360 looks at some of the most significant immigration litigation developments nearly six months into Trump's second term.

  4. July 17, 2025

    J&J Loses Bid To DQ Beasley Allen From Talc MDL Committee

    A New Jersey federal judge on Thursday denied Johnson & Johnson's bid to remove the Beasley Allen Law Firm from the plaintiffs steering committee in the multidistrict talc litigation but said that changes would be made to the committee's structure.

  5. June 02, 2025

    J&J Again Seeks To Block Beasley Allen In NJ Talc Litigation

    Johnson & Johnson has opposed a New Jersey talc claimant's motion for the pro hac vice admission of two attorneys from The Beasley Allen Law Firm, claiming the partners' conduct in its talc unit's bankruptcy proceedings warrants denial of the application.

  6. September 23, 2024

    J&J Accuses Beasley Allen Of Casting Bogus Talc Ballots

    Johnson & Johnson has accused the Beasley Allen Law Firm of casting about two dozen false ballots against the company's latest talc bankruptcy plan without voters' consent and urged a New Jersey federal court to remove the firm from the plaintiff's steering committee as a consequence.

  7. August 13, 2024

    'Clever' Scheme Is Concealing Talc Litigation Funding, J&J Says

    The Beasley Allen Law Firm needs to disclose alleged litigation funding fueling its litigation over Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder even if that funding was not given directly to the firm since the disclosure rules apply to "parties" and not "law firms," J&J has told a New Jersey federal court.

  8. August 07, 2024

    Law Firms Fight J&J Bid To Revive Talc Subpoenas

    The Beasley Allen Law Firm, the steering committee of talc plaintiffs suing Johnson & Johnson, and a third-party law firm urged the New Jersey federal court this week to reject a bid from the pharmaceutical company to reinstate subpoenas seeking evidence of alleged third-party litigation funding.

  9. July 22, 2024

    Lack Of 'Smoking Gun' Sinks J&J's Bid To DQ Beasley Allen

    The Beasley Allen Law Firm may represent plaintiffs in multicounty talc injury litigation in New Jersey state court, after a judge found Johnson & Johnson failed to show a former Faegre Drinker outside counsel shared information he learned representing the company in earlier talc litigation.

  10. July 11, 2024

    Talc Law Firms Beat J&J Subpoenas Seeking Funding Info

    The Beasley Allen Law Firm, another plaintiffs law firm and a litigation funder defeated subpoenas from Johnson & Johnson in talc litigation, with a special master reasoning that the broad swath of discovery permitted in federal courts still has limits.