Hu v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-05990
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Hu v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Judge Gilliam denied Sophie Hu’s motion for appointed counsel because she was pursuing her mother’s claims.
Sophie Hu, whose request for court-appointed counsel was denied; the order did not decide the underlying product-liability claims.
What happened
In Hu v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sophie Hu asked the court to appoint a lawyer for her product-liability case involving her mother’s alleged injuries from Xarelto. Hu had represented herself throughout the case.
The court said appointed counsel is reserved for exceptional circumstances. It found that Hu’s main problem was not the complexity of the legal issues, but that she could not legally pursue viable claims on her mother’s behalf without a lawyer. The court therefore found that her chances of success were essentially zero because she lacked standing, or the legal right to bring the claims.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Hu’s motion for appointment of counsel. The court also noted that the Federal Pro Bono Project had not found a lawyer willing to represent her.
The detailed version
- Hu v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals · No. 4:21-cv-05990
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 11, 2024
Background
Sophie Hu sued Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and other defendants in August 2021 and filed an amended complaint later that month. The case was transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana in December 2021 for coordinated proceedings and was returned to the Northern District of California in January 2024. Hu then moved for appointment of counsel.
The amended complaint alleges that Hu’s mother, Fumian Zhao, suffered a cerebellar hemorrhage after using Xarelto, resulting in severe pain, suffering, and incapacity. Hu asserted product-liability claims against the makers of Xarelto, most of which appeared to rely on an alleged failure to warn. She sought compensation for injuries and related losses to her family. Hu had represented herself throughout the litigation and said she had made sustained efforts to find a lawyer.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court may request counsel for an indigent litigant only in “exceptional circumstances.” The court evaluates both the plaintiff’s likely success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to present the claims without a lawyer, considering the complexity of the legal issues. Hu had not asked to proceed without paying filing fees, but the court assumed for purposes of this order that she met the statute’s indigency requirement.
Court’s reasoning
The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting appointed counsel. It determined that Hu could not prosecute her claims without representation because all of the viable claims were asserted on her mother’s behalf. The court concluded that Hu lacked standing—the legal ability to bring the claims—and therefore that her likelihood of success at that time was essentially zero.
The court also noted that Hu had contacted the Federal Pro Bono Project, but the project had been unable to identify a lawyer willing to represent her. The court stated that it would be inappropriate to force an unwilling attorney to take the case. The opinion also noted that the Eastern District had previously denied Hu’s request for counsel in the coordinated proceedings.
Disposition
The court DENIED Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.