Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 19, 2023

Nelson v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.et al

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:23-cv-04875
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
6
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Nelson v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., Judge Gilliam approved party substitutions, dismissed two defendants without prejudice, and stayed response deadlines pending MDL proceedings.

Who this affects

The order affects Jordan Nelson and Regina Peralta, the remaining defendants, and the parties dismissed or substituted in the caption. It changes the named parties, pauses defendants’ response deadlines, and preserves defendants’ potential defenses.

What happened

Nelson v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. involves Jordan Nelson and Regina Peralta’s lawsuit against companies concerning products identified in their complaint. The parties told the court that some defendants had been named incorrectly and that related cases had been submitted for possible consolidation in multidistrict litigation.

The court dismissed Haleon US Capital LLC and GSK plc without prejudice and replaced them with GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC. It also dismissed Kenvue, Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare without prejudice, amended the case caption, and stayed defendants’ deadlines to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until further order.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the agreed changes and stay on October 19, 2023. The order did not decide the lawsuit’s underlying claims, and the defendants preserved their ability to raise defenses later.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nelson v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.et al · No. 4:23-cv-04875
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Oct. 19, 2023

Background

Jordan Nelson and Regina Peralta brought this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Kenvue, Inc., McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Haleon US Capital LLC, GSK plc, Albertsons Companies, Inc., Target Corporation, Walmart Inc., and Perrigo Company plc.

The parties stipulated that Haleon US Capital LLC and GSK plc were incorrectly named defendants and that GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC was the proper defendant regarding certain products alleged in the complaint. They also stipulated that Kenvue, Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare were incorrectly named defendants and that Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. was the proper defendant regarding certain products alleged in the complaint.

The parties also told the court that a petition had been filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate related civil actions into multidistrict litigation involving oral phenylephrine marketing and sales practices. They agreed that response deadlines should be stayed while the panel considered that petition, to avoid duplicated pretrial work, wasted judicial resources, and potentially conflicting rulings.

Order

The court ordered that Haleon US Capital LLC and GSK plc be dismissed without prejudice and replaced by GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC. The court ordered that Kenvue, Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare be dismissed without prejudice, and it ordered the case caption amended to reflect those changes.

The court also stayed any served defendant’s deadline to answer, move, or otherwise plead in response to the complaint or any later amended complaint. The stay remains in place until further order of the court or any court to which the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigns the related actions.

The stipulation did not waive defendants’ possible defenses, including defenses concerning personal jurisdiction, pleading requirements, or other statutory or common-law grounds. The defendants expressly reserved the right to raise those defenses in response to an operative or amended complaint.

Disposition and Effect

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the stipulation on October 19, 2023. The order made party and caption changes and paused responsive proceedings; it did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or the defendants’ defenses.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.