Collins v Pfizer, Inc.

Supreme Court, New York County

Decided on May 21, 2026

Index No. 190266/2024

Eric Schumacher, J.

NYSCEF doc nos. 140-149 and 249-303 were read on motion seq. 002 to dismiss.

NYSCEF doc nos. 125-139, 150, 156-196, and 200-241 were read on motion seq. 003 to dismiss.

Motion seq. 002 by defendants Johnson & Johnson and Pecos River Talc LLC pursuant to CPLR 327 and 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them granted in part to the extent that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice as asserted against Pecos River Talc LLC and the motion is otherwise denied without prejudice to renew following the completion of jurisdictional discovery as to Johnson & Johnson.

Motion seq. 003 by defendant Alticor, Inc. f/k/a Amway pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Elisabeth Lake, now deceased, having been a resident of the United Kingdom, commenced this asbestos personal injury action on October 8, 2024, by filing a standard New York City Asbestos Litigation summons and complaint. As is relevant here, the complaint, as amended (NYSCEF doc no. 309), asserts that movants did business in New York. The complaint further alleges that Johnson & Johnson (hereinafter J&J) created Johnson's Baby Powder (hereinafter JBP), a cosmetic talc product, had JBP manufactured and distributed in New York, and is liable both directly and through its successors or subsidiaries dealing in JBP for any injuries caused by asbestos in JBP (id. ¶¶ 51-57).

At her deposition, plaintiff indicated that she used JBP from the mid-1950s to 2024. Plaintiff further indicated that she would purchase the JBP at retail locations in the United Kingdom. Plaintiff's daughter, Sophie Collins, now substituted into the action as the co-executor of the estate of plaintiff, testified at her deposition that she herself purchased JBP online at Amazon, eBay, and other online retailers for use by plaintiff more than 100 times in her own life beginning in the mid- to late-1990s (tr at 349-352). Collins also testified that her sister and plaintiff's daughter Kirsten Jones was an Amway representative and had provided plaintiff with loose body and face powders containing talc that were in the home in and around 1993 (id. at 310-324).

Ms. Jones, in an affirmation, states that she was an Amway representative from around 1983 to 1984 who sold Artistry cosmetic-line talcum powder and cosmetic products (affirmation of Jones ¶¶ 3-4). Ms. Jones further states that "[i]t was [her] understanding" that those products "were manufactured in the United States and shipped to a warehouse in the United Kingdom for sale by the Amway representatives" and that "[t]o the best of [her] knowledge" she never sold "products which were manufactured anywhere other than in the United States" (id. ¶¶ 5-6).

J&J and Pecos River Talc LLC (hereinafter Pecos River) move in seq. 002 pursuant to CPLR 327 and 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction and inconvenient forum. Alticor, Inc. f/k/a Amway (hereinafter Alticor) moves in seq. 003 pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it for lack of personal jurisdiction.^FN1

Movants argue, in sum and substance and as is relevant here, that plaintiff's use of the JBP and Artistry products is not sufficiently connected to New York such that this court has jurisdiction over them. J&J and Pecos River further argue that New York is an inconvenient forum because plaintiff resided in the United Kingdom and all her relevant witnesses, including third-party witnesses, are there. Plaintiff argues that its pleadings and supporting documents constitute, at a minimum, a sufficient start toward establishing jurisdiction over movants, and any deficiency could be resolved by means of further discovery. Plaintiff further argues that J&J [*2]and Pecos River have failed to show that any of plaintiff's witnesses or evidence would be unavailable in the case due to the New York forum and that the court should defer to plaintiff's choice of court. Plaintiff further argues that this action could not be brought in the United Kingdom due to differing rules concerning discovery, among other things.

DISCUSSION

Based on the papers submitted and oral argument, the court finds that plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to jurisdictional discovery as to J&J, only, and that the court does not have personal jurisdiction over Pecos River and Alticor in this case.

"The party opposing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction has the burden of proving satisfaction of statutory and due process prerequisites. In applying CPLR 302(a)(1), New York's long-arm jurisdiction statute, proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant's activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted."

(Biswas v Aramis Distribs. NY, Inc., 244 AD3d 470, 471 [1st Dept 2025] [internal citations and quotation marks omitted].)

"CPLR 302(a)(1) requires a two-pronged jurisdictional inquiry. The first inquiry is whether [the] defendant conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business within the state; the second inquiry is whether plaintiff's claims arise from the transactions. The primary focus of a specific jurisdiction inquiry is the defendant's relationship to the forum state. If the lawsuit arises out of or relates to the defendant's contacts with the forum state—here New York—and there is an affiliation between New York and the underlying controversy, then a New York court may exercise specific jurisdiction over the defendant. Although there must be a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted, a strict causal relationship is not necessary. Rather, the causal link or relatedness between the defendant's activities and the plaintiff's claims requires only that there be a relationship among the defendant, the forum and the litigation. Otherwise stated, plaintiff's claims must have an articulable nexus with the defendant's transactions within this state.

"Once both those prongs are satisfied, there is a further inquiry to determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play, substantial justice, and due process. The due process element is satisfied where the nondomiciliary has minimum contacts with New York State and based upon those contacts, defendant could or should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court here. By purposefully availing itself of the privilege of conducting business in New York State, a defendant should foresee the possibility of having to defend a lawsuit here."

(English v Avon Prods., Inc., 206 AD3d 404, 406-407 [1st Dept 2022] [internal citations and quotations marks omitted].) "However, as facts relevant to this determination are frequently in the exclusive control of the opposing party and will only be uncovered during discovery, [*3]plaintiff need only make a sufficient start in demonstrating the existence of personal jurisdiction in responding to defendants' motion[s]" (Bangladesh Bank v Rizal Comm. Banking Corp., 226 AD3d 60, 74 [1st Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and emending omitted]).

Here, as to J&J, the court finds that plaintiff has made a sufficient start for the purposes of the court's directing the completion of jurisdictional discovery. The facts of this case raise the question of whether any New York-based JBP made its way to plaintiff through the stream of commerce. While J&J strongly asserts through its exhibits and arguments that JBP in the United Kingdom was manufactured and distributed by other entities not connected to its United States distribution network, J&J also admits that it has "never sold JBP directly to consumers, as opposed to through the retail marketplace" (seq. 002 reply memo of law at 8-9).

J&J nevertheless does not assert that it did not permit the sale of JBP made in New York online around the world on third-party sites such as Amazon, eBay, and other online retailers allegedly utilized by Collins. J&J is correct in raising the possibility in its papers that there may yet be no articulable nexus of a transaction related to plaintiff's use of JBP in the United Kingdom and a J&J business act in New York. Yet whether such a relation is too far attenuated to confer personal jurisdiction to this court will depend on the outcome of jurisdictional discovery and whether plaintiff can satisfy the relevant statutory and due process prerequisites.

As to Pecos River, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to establish that the court has personal jurisdiction over it and has not made a sufficient start toward doing so such that jurisdictional discovery is warranted. Pecos River is only mentioned in the complaint insofar as it is alleged to have done business in New York. In opposing motion seq. 002, plaintiff fails to set forth arguments or evidence connecting Pecos River to any transaction concerning plaintiff. There is no elaboration in the complaint as to what role, if any, Pecos River had in causing injury to plaintiff. There is some discussion of the Pecos River affirmation submitted in support of the motion to dismiss, and counsel offers some oblique asides insinuating a connection between Pecos River and defendant Kolmar Laboratories, Inc., allegedly the manufacturing arm of J&J in New York (seq. 002 opp memo of law at 7, 16-17). The bald assertions of counsel as to Pecos River are without evidentiary value and wholly unsupported by the evidence submitted. Even if the court were to accept the statements of counsel as true, the totality of the papers submitted supports neither a finding of personal jurisdiction, nor a sufficient start, as to Pecos River.

Similarly, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a sufficient start as to Alticor, and this court does not have personal jurisdiction over it in this case. While Ms. Jones, the Amway representative and a daughter of plaintiff, has affirmed in opposition to Alticor's motion her personal knowledge that the Amway products she sold were manufactured in the United States, there is no statement from Ms. Jones or otherwise that the subject products were manufactured in New York or that they in any way intersected with New York commerce at any time. The evidence submitted in opposition by plaintiff to Alticor's motion does not support even an attenuated connection between New York and those products which an Amway representative might find themselves selling in the United Kingdom. To the extent that plaintiff submits a screenshot of Google Maps allegedly showing Amway shipping location in the Times Square Tower, this is not in evidentiary form. There is no URL provided for the source of the information in the underlying screenshot submitted. A screenshot of Google maps from a phone [*4]screen, without more, is not evidence as to the content of that screenshot. In any event, there is no showing that this site is in fact of Alticor, or was in operation during the relevant period, or in fact ships to the United Kingdom, or anywhere, and that such shipments would have included the Artistry products as recently as 1984 (seq. 003 affirmation in opposition, exhibit F). Similarly, certain Miyoshi talc records, plaintiff concedes, are from the 1990s and beyond, post-dating Ms. Jones' Amway tenure, and in any event "jurisdiction . . . may not be based upon [] business dealings to acquire raw talc from [] a New York company" such as Miyoshi (English at 407).

As to J&J's argument of inconvenient forum, the court finds that dismissal on this ground is not in the interest of substantial justice (CPLR 327). J&J has failed to set forth any specific witness or otherwise that could not be made available due to the case being brought in New York. At least two major depositions, of plaintiff and of Collins, have already been taken. There are 30 defendants, and the action has been proceeding apace in this court and before the discovery special master for nearly 20 months. This court expects all parties to meet and confer and make a diligent, good-faith effort to complete all discovery of evidence situated in the United Kingdom reasonably and with speed, and to consider availing themselves of readily available technologies to make such discovery more convenient such as video depositions.

The court has considered all other arguments and submissions in the case, and they are of no moment.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that motion seq. 002 by defendants Johnson & Johnson and Pecos River Talc LLC pursuant to CPLR 327 and 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them is granted in part to the extent that it is

ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice as asserted against Pecos River Talc LLC; and it is further

ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied without prejudice to renew within 20 days following the completion of jurisdictional discovery as to Johnson & Johnson, but if the motion is not filed timely, the affirmative defense of personal jurisdiction is waived, and Johnson & Johnson shall file its answer within 20 days of the waiver; and it is further

ORDERED that the jurisdictional discovery is deemed complete as of the date of a stipulation between plaintiff and Johnson & Johnson, or a written statement by the special master, deeming jurisdictional discovery complete; and it is further

ORDERED that motion seq. 003 by defendant Alticor, Inc. f/k/a Amway pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that, within five days of entry, Pecos River Talc LLC and Alticor, Inc. f/k/a [*5]Amway shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry on plaintiff, and plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry on Johnson & Johnson.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

DATE 5/21/2026

ERIC SCHUMACHER, J.S.C.