Judge Approves BP Oil Spill Settlement

Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier gave final approval to BP PLC's settlement with businesses and people who lost money because of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP has estimated it will pay $7.8 billion to resolve more than 100,000 claims by businesses and individuals from the nation's worst offshore oil spill. The settlement has no cap; the company could end up paying more or less.

Judge Barbier approved the settlement in a 125-page ruling issued Friday evening. "None of the objections, whether filed on the objections docket or elsewhere, have shown the Settlement to be anything other than fair, reasonable, and adequate," he wrote. Barbier preliminarily approved the settlement in May.

The infamous April 2010 blowout of BP's Macondo well triggered an explosion that killed 11 rig workers. The well spilled more than 200 million gallons, or roughly 4.9 million barrels, of oil into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico over 87 days, until it was permanently sealed. A camera at the well-head broadcasted a live feed of the disaster to the world.

Barbier has not ruled on a medical settlement for cleanup workers and others who say exposure to oil or dispersants made them sick — just on economic and property damage claims. The agreement covers people and businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and some coastal counties in eastern Texas and western Florida, and in adjacent Gulf waters and bays.

As part of the settlement, BP will pay $2.3 billion to cover seafood-related claims by commercial fishing vessel owners, captains and deckhands. That fund is the settlement's only cap on damages. That figure is about five times the average industry gross revenue from 2007 to 2009 and, according to evidence provided, more than 19 times the revenue the industry lost in 2010.

While US District Judge Carl Barbier approved the deal in May, he held a “fairness hearing” in November, which weighed objections from 13,000 claimants who challenged the settlement. The hearing served to resolve some of the oil company’s liability for the Macondo well blowout. The blown out Macondo well gushed about After Judge Barbier gave preliminary approval in May, thousands of people opted out of the settlement to pursue their cases individually.

Still unresolved are environmental damage claims brought by the federal government and Gulf Coast states against BP and its partners on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, and claims against Switzerland-based rig owner Transocean Ltd., and Houston-based cement contractor Halliburton.

There is a trial scheduled for 2013 which will identify causes of BP's well blowout and assign percentages of fault to the companies involved in the economic and environmental disaster.

Recent Alabama Federal Opinion

In Lamar v. Home Depot, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2012 WL 6026272 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 3, 2012), Lamar instituted a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Mobile County.  In Count I, he sought medical benefits under the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act; in other counts, he asserted claims for breach of contract, fraud and outrageous conduct.  The defendants removed the action asserting diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction.  Lamar filed a motion to remand.  Relying on his reading of Reed v. Heil Co., 206 F.3d 1055 (11th Cir. 2000), Chief District Judge Steele concluded that he was compelled to remand just Count I, the workers’ compensation claim, and to deny the request to transfer the other claims.

Hopefully, at some point in time, the Eleventh Circuit will address this decision and, especially, Steele’s conclusions that there was no “piecemeal” removal and that defendants can successfully remove a lawsuit containing a workers’ compensation claim with an appreciation that the workers’ compensation claim will have to be remanded while the federal court retains jurisdiction as to the other, non-workers’ compensation claims.

Obviously, we will encounter this opinion because, in similar scenarios, defendants will remove our lawsuits and cite the opinion when we seek a “full” remand.

Jury Verdict a Defeat for Chinese Drywall Homeowners

A federal jury last week ruled in favor of the New Orleans drywall supplier, Interior/Exterior Supply, that distributed the toxic and corrosive Knauf-brand imported Chinese drywall. Judge Fallon, the presiding judge over the Chinese drywall MDL, oversaw the week-long trial and found that the company did not know that the materials purchased from Knauf were defective.

Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin, a major manufacturer of problem drywall from China, agreed last year to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to repair 4,500 homes ruined with its product. That proposed settlement is still awaiting final court approval from Judge Fallon.

One of the major impacts of this verdict is how it affects other distributors of Knauf-brand drywall and Taishan-brand drywall in the MDL and the many other state-filed cases throughout the United States.

 

Heartbreaking Story On The Realities of Tort Reform

Al.com published a heartbreaking story on how tort reform affects an everyday Alabama family.

 

Most average Americans have been convinced that tort reform is the remedy to high insurance costs and a way to end "frivolous lawsuits" (or as the tort reformers will tell you behind closed doors-any lawsuit).

 

What they do not understand is that the average American's interests are almost never aligned with the advocates for tort reform. The responsible hospital, doctors and nurses in this story get off the hook for their actions, while the family of the injured deal with the heartbreak and the bill (not to mention the average American taxpayer footing most of the bill). Challen Stephens, the author of the piece, does a great job exposing the absurdity of Alabama's Health Care Authorities Act and its cap at $100,000. Great article that sadly will probably do nothing to change our social and political views toward tort reform.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/12/tonsillectomy_at_huntsville_ho.html#incart_river_default

Diversity-based Jurisdiction and the One Year Rule

            In lawsuits where the sole source of federal subject-matter jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship, Congress imposed a repose-like feature on the ability to remove the matter to federal court.  For example, after the expiration of a specified time, there is no removal jurisdiction when a plaintiff dismissed a non-diverse defendant beyond the specified time.

            For cases filed before January 6, 2012, the applicable statute reads:  “[A] case may not be removed on the basis of [diversity] jurisdiction more than 1 year after commencement of the action.”  [Former] 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

            For cases filed on or after January 6, 2012, the applicable statute reads:  “A case may not be removed … on the basis of [diversity] jurisdiction more than 1 year after commencement of the action, unless the district court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.”  [Current] 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1).

            A civil action is commenced on the date that the civil action was commenced in a state court within the meaning of that state’s law.  In Alabama, a civil action is commenced when the complaint is filed and the filing fee is paid or a hardship exemption is obtained.  Ala. R. Civ. P. 3(a).  Thus, in Alabama, the one-year repose-like feature starts to run when the complaint is successfully filed in a state court.

            Under the former § 1446(b), most Circuits, including the Eleventh Circuit, rigidly applied the one-year rule regardless of the plaintiff’s behavior.  The Fifth Circuit adopted an “equitable” exception that would be applied when the plaintiff was especially outrageous in keeping a non-diverse defendant in the lawsuit for one year.  This exception was rather narrowly applied in the Fifth Circuit.

            The current § 1446(c)(1) allows for an exception to the one-year rule when a plaintiff has “acted in bad faith.”  To date, no federal court has had to address what constituted “bad faith” sufficient to allow an exception.  I would expect that federal courts will look to how courts in the Fifth Circuit applied the “equitable” exception and will require overwhelming evidence that the plaintiff knowingly acted in a manner intended to “run out the clock” and was particularly egregious in not dismissing the non-diverse defendant before the expiration of the one-year deadline. 

 

Chinese Drywall Fairness Hearing Heard Today

Today, the much anticipated fairness hearing occurred in Judge Fallon's courtroom in New Orleans. Judge Fallon is the presiding judge over the Chinese drywall MDL. A call-in line was not set up, so attorneys outside of the courtroom could not monitor the hearing. Judge Fallon was urged to accept the proposed settlement agreements between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.

What complicates matters is that the different agreements ultimately affect different categories of Plaintiffs. Also, the deadlines for the Defendants to opt-out of the agreements have been extended past today's date. Below are two links to stories covering the hearing. Of note is the figure that 300 or so Plaintiffs have opted out of the proposed settlements.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Judge-urged-to-approve-Chinese-drywall-settlements-4033488.php

http://www.myfoxal.com/story/20086215/judge-urged-to-approve-chinese-drywall-settlements

NCAA Lawsuit Picking Up Steam

There have been some big things coming out of the NCAA games lawsuit lately. We have received some great documents through discovery. An article posted on al.com yesterday sums up what is going on. Click on the below link to read.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/11/ncaa_knew_ea_sports_video_game.html#incart_river_default

Latest Alabama Supreme Court Ruling on Nursing Home Care

On Friday, October 19, 2012, the Alabama Supreme Court issued Hill v. Fairfield Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC.  Hill suffered a broken leg while being helped out of bed by a nursing assistant at the Fairfield Nursing Home.  Hill was 85 at the time of the fall and had been a Fairfield patient since 1992.

In addition to suing Fairfield, Hill sued a number of other entities seeking to “pierce the corporate veil.”  Prior to trial, the trial court granted summary judgments to these other entities.  At the close of Hill’s case-in-chief, the trial court granted Fairfield’s JML motion.  The Supreme Court reversed both the JML and the summary judgment.

Hill’s designated standard-of-care expert was Nelson, “a registered nurse since 1997, who had worked in skilled-nursing facilities and who had supervised both certified nursing assistants and licensed practical nurses.”  Fairfield contended that its physical-therapy department assessed or determined the measures to take when getting Hill out of bed and that because Nelson was not licensed, trained, or experienced in the field of physical therapy, she was not a similarly situated health-care provider.  The Supreme Court declared that Fairfield could not rely on its delegating “to its physical-therapy department responsibility for making patient-transfer assessments” because, “[u]ltimately, [Fairfield’s] position would allow any institutional medical provider to control the standard of care for which it will be held responsible simply by having some department within its corporate structure, rather than the law, select the standard of care applicable to various activities undertaken by its individual medical-provider employees.”   (Emphasis in original.)   Thus, Nelson could testify as to the standard of care applicable to the “certified nursing assistant in effecting a transfer of a patient such as Hill and as to whether [the assistant] met that standard in this case.”

Hill’s designated causation expert was Dr. Volgas, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon who treated Hill following the fall.  Fairfield contended that the broken leg could have been caused by her osteoporosis.  In responding to a question, Dr. Volgas acknowledged that “this fracture [could] have occurred prior to … falling at the nursing home” but proceeded to declare that this was not likely “because of the fracture pattern and because of where the fracture is.”  The Supreme Court held that Dr. Volgas’s testimony was sufficient to create a jury question as to whether the fall was the probable cause of this broken leg.

The opinion extensively discusses Alabama law regarding piercing the corporate veil and details the extensive evidence proffered by Hill.  Among other things, Fairfield owned no real property or significant personal property and carried only $25,000 in liability insurance.   The Supreme Court held that genuine questions were created as to whether Fairfield was the “alter ego” of the other entities.   

 

New York Times Article on Latest Taishan Ruling

The New York Times published an article last week on the latest jurisdictional rulings over Taishan. It points out the difficulties in ever recovering from Taishan, a Chinese manufacturer. It also touches on a recent post I wrote regarding Federal legislation and the importation of Chinese-manufactured drywall. Click on the link below to get the entire story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/business/chinese-drywall-lawsuits-at-a-turning-point.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Legislation Passes House to Ban Sale of Toxic Chinese Drywall

The Bradenton (FL) Times reported, "US Rep. Vern Buchanan, (R-FL), co-sponsored legislation that passed the US House, which would ban the sale of toxic Chinese drywall and offer relief to thousands of Florida homeowners who've been victims of its use." The Times noted that "the Contaminated Drywall Safety Act makes Chinese-manufactured drywall a banned hazardous material under the Consumer Product Safety Act, meaning it cannot be imported into the US, and requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue guidelines to ensure that existing drywall is properly disposed of." Also, the bill "calls on the Secretary of State to demand that Chinese manufacturers comply with any legal decisions and remedies for affected American homeowners." The legislation has passed the House and now moves to the Senate for consideration.

The Daily Press (VA) reported, "The toxic drywall has affected thousands across the United States, including hundreds in Hampton Roads, such as the Hollymeade neighborhood in Newport News. The defective drywall was used during the mid-2000s building boom when there was a shortage of American-made drywall." The story added that "many homeowners have complained of health problems resulting from a strong 'rotten eggs' smell, including headaches and respiratory problems."

I am not sure what this legislation will accomplish. The information that is out there shows toxic drywall was imported into our country between 2005 and 2008. I have seen no information indicating that toxic Chinese drywall is still being imported for use in the U.S. This legislation appears to be more of a way for politicians to say they are doing something in an election year, when the problem is already out of the bag. I do think that the part of the bill calling for the Chinese manufacturers to comply with any verdicts against them is interesting, but do not see how it could be enforceable.

Alabama Supreme Court Ruling on Common-Fund Doctrine

In Ex parte State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 4238631, Mitchell, a State Farm insured, was injured in an accident caused by Kirk, a Cotton States insured.   Mitchell retained an attorney who investigated the accident and wrote Cotton States seeking to settle for policy limits.  State Farm paid Mitchell (a) $5,000 in medical payments and (b) $7,992.90 in non-medical payments.  State Farm contacted Cotton States seeking reimbursement of the full $12.992.20 paid Mitchell; Cotton States acceded as to $7,992.90 of the demand but, as to the $5,000, declared that “the balance of the subrogation remains outstanding pending the settlement of the Bodily Injury claim with the insured and her attorney.”  State Farm wrote Mitchell’s attorney that State Farm did not him to assist in protecting its subrogation rights as to the $5,000.  Mitchell sued Kirk and State Farm.  When Mitchell and Cotton States reached a tentative settlement for $35,000, State Farm consented to the settlement but requested full reimbursement of the $5,000 payment for medical expenses.  On behalf of Kirk, Cotton States paid $30,000 to Mitchell and interpleaded $5,000 into court.  The trial court ruled that, the common-fund doctrine did not apply and that State Farm was entitled to the entire $5,000.  The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court and held that the common-fund doctrine fund did apply and that Mitchell was entitled to a deduction for attorney fees and expenses.  The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals.

 

The Supreme Court noted that Cotton States declined to meet State Farm’s direct subrogation demand for repayment of the subject $5,000.  Thus, Mitchell’s filed lawsuit would create a common fund from which State Farm’s subrogation right would be satisfied.

 

The Supreme Court rejected State Farm’s contention of “active participation,” an exception to applying the common-fund doctrine.  This exception arises if the insurer “actively assist its insured in the creation, discovery, increase or preservation of the common fund.”  The Supreme Court declared that “an insurance company’s limited appearance to protect its subrogation interest and no more will not shield the insurance company from the application of the common-fund doctrine.”  In other words, the insurer must do more than inform the insured’s attorney that his assistance is not wanted; instead, the insurer must actually do something that helps create the common fund.

 

The Supreme Court further found that there was no policy language that abrogated the application of the common-fund doctrine.

Alabama Supreme Court Ruling on Wrongful Death

In Boudreaux v. Pettaway, No. 1100281, deceased’s medical records clearly showed that she had numerous risk factors placing her in the category of patients with a high risk of pulmonary aspiration during the administration of anesthesia via routine intubation.  Despite those risk factors, a board-certified anesthesiologist and certified registered nurse anesthetist failed to review the medical records or physically examine the patient for the presence of aspiration risks.  The pair failed to employ the rapid-sequence induction process required for patients at risk for aspiration.  Patient aspirated bile into her lungs and died as a result of aspiration pneumonitis.

 

The jury awarded $20,000,000 in damages.  The plaintiff accepted the trial court’s remittance of $16 million, leaving a $4 million judgment.

 

Defendants appealed the denial of their motion for new trial.

 

Defendants suggested that they were entitled to a new trial because prospective jurors failed to answer questions asked during voir dire.   The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s determination that the questions were unclear and confusing.  The Supreme Court noted that the information the defendants claim was not disclosed were matters of public record.  The Supreme Court observed that the defendants had allowed individuals to sit on the jury who had disclosed information similar to what the subject jurors allegedly failed to disclose.

 

Defendants also sought a further remittitur.  The opinion addresses how Alabama wrongful-death cases are different from non-death cases.  In assessing the impact of the judgment on the defendants’ net worth, the trial court considered the defendants’ “bad-faith” action against their insurer.  Only Justice Murdock dissented to the other justices’ finding that the trial court properly considered the “bad faith” action in assessing the impact.

 

From reading the opinion, it is evident that the justices concluded that the anesthesiologist and nurse anesthetist were medically negligent and acted reprehensibly.  The anesthesiologist arrived at the hospital only minutes before the surgery.  At trial, the nurse anesthetist repeatedly admitted that he breached the applicable standard of care.

10 Biggest NCAA Lawsuits

One of my readers sent me this interesting article regarding the top ten biggest lawsuits the NCAA has ever, and still faces. Our firm is involved in the NCAA games case which made it on this list at Number 3. Interesting read.

http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2012/08/27/the-10-biggest-ncaa-lawsuits-of-all-time/

Judge Fallon Rules U.S. Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Taishan

Judge Fallon, the presiding federal judge over the Chinese drywall cases consolidated in an MDL, has refused to dismiss claims from homeowners against one of the major manufacturers of the toxic and corrosive product. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. argued that U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction over claims against the Chinese company, but the Court rejected that argument.

Judge Fallon also refused to vacate a $2.6 million default judgment he entered against the company after it initially refused to respond to the suits. Taishan Gypsum manufactured and sold more than 1.8 million sheets of drywall that were shipped to Virginia, Florida, Louisiana and other parts of the U.S. from 2005 to 2009.

The company claims it did not know the ultimate buyer or user of its drywall in Virginia, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that "such lack of knowledge does not insulate a foreign defendant from personal jurisdiction in the forum," Fallon wrote.

The judge said Taishan "possessed more than mere awareness or expectation that its drywall would be delivered, sold, and installed in Virginia." Fallon presides over more than 10,000 claims involving Chinese drywall. His ruling also could benefit homebuilders, brokers, sellers and installers who have been sued for using Chinese drywall and are seeking to recoup millions of dollars they have spent to repair damaged homes.

A different Chinese company, Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., agreed in December to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to resolve related drywall claims. That company is in reality a German corporation who owns manufacturing plants in mainland China.

Chinese drywall was used in the construction of thousands of homes, mainly in the South, after a series of hurricanes in 2005 and before the housing bubble burst. The drywall contains unusually high levels of sulfur that emits foul-smelling gases, corrodes HVAC coils, copper pipes and electrical wiring, and tarnishes other metal items in the home. Homeowners also complain of aggravation of allergies, asthma, nosebleeds and other maladies.

The litigation against Taishan "has not followed the same trajectory or enjoyed the same measure of success" as the Knauf cases, Fallon wrote in his Order. Judge Fallon had to travel to Hong Kong earlier this year to supervise a series of depositions of Taishan executives after an initial round of depositions, hamstrung by a language barrier and other problems, dissolved into "chaos."

What does this all mean to the thousands of homeowners who have Taishan board in their homes? That answer is not at all clear. It is not yet known if Taishan will appeal the ruling. Taishan could ultimately ignore the Court’s ruling by not satisfying any monetary judgments against it, as many other Chinese manufacturers do in our country.

The problems created by Taishan’s legal tactics lead Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Representatives Betty Sutton (D-OH) and Mike Turner (R-OH) to introduce the “Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2011” (S.1946/H.R.3646).  The bill would force foreign manufacturers to play by the same rules as American manufacturers by requiring foreign manufacturers to have a registered U.S. agent that would accept service of process for civil and regulatory claims.

Alabama Supreme Court Ruling on Outrage Claims

In Woodruff v. City of Tuscaloosa, No. 1110355, the Alabama Supreme Court reconfirmed that a trial court may dismiss an asserted tort-of-outrage cause of action based on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the trial court concludes that there is no basis for the claim.  The plaintiff’s relief is to seek appellate review and seek to convince the appellate court that the particular facts warrant an expansion of the situations in which this “special” claim is viable. 

 

Additionally, when the defendants sought to discover Woodruff’s medical records, he protested that he had suffered no emotional distress.  This protest was a self-admission that he had suffered no emotional distress, an necessary element of a tort-of-outrage claim.

Alabama Supreme Court Ruling on Fictitious Defendants

                In Ex parte Nail, No. 1110742, on June 3, 2005, Dulin’s treacheostomy tube became dislodged during a bath administered by hospital personnel, causing him to suffer brain damage due to oxygen deprivation.  A month later, his wife obtained the hospital records on which the names of individuals on the “Code Team” were abbreviated, misspelled and/or illegible. 

            On May 2, 2007, a personal injury/medical negligence cause of action was brought against the hospital and 17 fictitiously named defendants.  Accompanying the complaint were discovery requests asking for the “names of all individuals who were assisting or attending to [Dulin] at the time [his] trachemostomy tube became dislodged.”  On September 10, 2007, the hospital responded with the names Alanna Nail, Paul Watson and Gennie Farragher.  On October 26, 2007, the complaint was amended to substitute these three for fictitiously named defendants.  When the trial court denied the three’s motion to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds, the three filed a mandamus petition.  The Supreme Court denied the petition. 

            The Supreme Court held that, under the circumstances, the Dulin’s exercised ordinary due diligence and were excused from knowing or should have known the three’s identity when the original complaint was filed.  The Supreme Court emphasized that the Dulins had filed formal discovery requests with the original complaint, as well as, the problems with reading names on the records. 

            The “value” of this opinion should be considered in light of earlier opinions that suggest that a prospective plaintiff should undertake some informal investigation to determine who should be defendants and/or instituted pre-filing formal discovery.  Additionally, this was a five-justice opinion with Woodall writing the opinion.  The full court, with more “conservative” justices, might not be so understanding.

Missouri Supreme Court Reverses Cap on Damages in Liability Lawsuits

Last month, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned a 2005 law enacted to cap liability damages. Could the pendulum finally be swinging the other way? In almost every jurisdiction in our country, courts and legislatures have been cutting back the rights of injured victims and the peoples' right to trial by jury for the last 15 years. See the link below for an article on the ruling:

http://www.ktvu.com/news/ap/crime/mo-court-overturns-2005-cap-on-liability-lawsuits/nP7bG/

DePuy Settles Three Nevada Cases for Reported $600,000

It is being reported that Johnson & Johnson, which faces about 8,000 lawsuits over hip implants it recalled in 2010, agreed to pay approximately $600,000 to resolve three cases in the first settlements of the litigation. This amount seems to be on the low end of what the corporation should have expected to pay to settle the claims. In fact so low, that the  plaintiffs are now claiming that some party breached the confidentiality agreement by leaking a misleadingly low figure, and have asked the court to set aside the confidentialty agreement so they can set the record straight. The hearing on that issue is in about a month.

The three Nevada plaintiffs had filed jointly, claiming similar issues that resulted in obligatory revision surgery. The plaintiffs, Annelise Rundle, Martha Bender and Katherine Guy were set for trial Dec. 3.

Rundle, 74, Bender, 69, and Guy, 60, all had ASR hip replacements done by the same surgeon during the past six years, court filings in Las Vegas show. All three later had the artificial hips removed after experiencing pain and other side effects, according to the filings. Tests on Rundle showed she had health problems associated with metal filings from her hip, her lawyers said in the filings. In Bender’s case, doctors discovered evidence of bone damage from the device, lawyers said.

The complaint plead failure to warn, negligence, deceptive trade practices, and other allegations. Had the trio's case gone to court, it would have been the first ASR lawsuit tried in court. The consolidated Nevada cases are Rundle v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., A-11-636272, Clark County District Court (Las Vegas).

J&J’s DePuy unit recalled its 93,000 ASR hips worldwide in 2010, including 37,000 in the U.S., because studies conducted showed more than 12 percent of the devices failed within five years. Lawsuits in federal and state courts describe patients in pain and immobilized by joint dislocations, infections and bone fractures. Plaintiffs are also claiming metal debris from the hips, made from a cobalt and chromium alloy, causes necrosis of the soft tissue around the joint and an increase of metal ions in the bloodstream to harmful levels.

J&J faces more than 8,000 cases alleging the ASR hips are defective, according to court filings. U.S. District Judge David Katz in Toledo, Ohio, is overseeing about 6,000 federal suits that have been consolidated in the ASR MDL. The federal case is In re DePuy Orthopedics Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 10-MD-2197, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Toledo). The corporation is also defending itself in more than 2,000 cases filed in courts in California, Maryland, Nevada and other states.

The company said in January that it spent about $800 million on the recall during the past two years. It wouldn’t estimate its product-liability costs associated with all of the lawsuits.

J&J faces a state-court trial in Prince George’s County, Maryland, in January involving three hip-replacement recipients. Those cases would now be the first to go to trial if they are not resolved prior to trial. The MDL trial of claims over the devices is expected in March or April of 2013. Some estimate it may cost the products manufacturer as much as $2 billion to resolve all litigation over DePuy’s ASR hips.

J&J’s stock price rose 8 cents to $67.78 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The company’s 4.95 percent bonds, due to mature in May 2033, fell $1.23, or 1 percent, to $121 after news of the hip settlements was announced.