“Phila. Judge Denies Second Recusal Bid in Zantac Suit for Wife’s Ties to Blank Rome” —
- “A Philadelphia judge overseeing the sprawling Zantac mass tort has declined to step aside once again over his wife’s law firm’s ties to the litigation.”
- “Keller Postman represents Roberto Jimenez and other plaintiffs, who moved in December for Roberts to recuse himself from the case over his wife’s connection to Blank Rome after she began working there as a partner in February 2025. The plaintiffs noted that Blank Rome represents one of the defendants, Apotex Corp., in a separate case in the mass tort.”
- “This week [4/21], Roberts rejected the recusal motion, noting that although his wife is a partner at Blank Rome—which represents Apotex Corp., a defendant in one of more than 550 Zantac cases—Apotex is not a defendant in the present case, eliminating any basis for recusal.”
- “He also emphasized that Keller Postman does not represent the plaintiffs in the only case involving Apotex, Hilbert v. Boehringer Ingelheim, which was filed by Anapol Weiss. Roberts explained that Blank Rome entered the Hilbert case in 2021 and that his wife did not join the firm until February 2025, which Roberts said he disclosed that same month.”
- “He concluded that any recusal request was waived because Anapol Weiss never sought recusal, and that Keller Postman waited too long to seek recusal by waiting until December to file the present motion for recusal.”
- “Even assuming Keller Postman could properly raise the issue, the judge emphasized that Pennsylvania law presumes judges are ‘honorable, fair and competent’ and capable of determining whether they can rule impartially. After a ‘conscientious determination,’ Roberts concluded he could manage the Zantac mass tort impartially and without personal bias or interest. He noted that his role in the mass tort is largely administrative and that his wife does not represent Apotex in any matter in any jurisdiction.”
- “Roberts also said that his wife has been ‘walled off from having anything to do with Apotex,’ that her ‘compensation has no direct relationship to the amount of fees or income that Blank Rome earns from Apotex,’ and that her compensation from the firm ‘is not tied to Blank Rome’s representation of Apotex.’”
- “Plaintiffs’ counsel was also involved in a separate recusal motion filed against Roberts in 2024 in a separate suit in the litigation, Jimenez v. GlaxoSmithKline. The plaintiffs argued that Roberts’ wife’s ties to her then-firm, Reed Smith, which represented Zantac manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline in litigation over the drug in other states, meant he should step aside.”
- “While they argued that his wife’s connection to GSK could create the appearance of impropriety, Roberts denied the motion after ruling that he could remain impartial in the litigation.”
- “‘The position advocated by plaintiffs has the potential to substantially and considerably impact judicial administration and case assignments throughout the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at all judicial levels,’ Roberts held in his 2024 order.”
“Reinsurers Say Arbitrator DQ Bid Should Stay In Federal Court” —
- “Reinsurers are urging a New York federal court not to heed a Farmers unit’s request to remand its suit seeking disqualification of an arbitrator from an asbestos coverage fight, arguing the insurer wrongly framed the dispute as an attorney ethics matter.”
- “Truck Insurance Exchange’s claim that a New York attorney’s work for the insurer more than two decades ago bars him from serving as an arbitrator in the coverage fight fall squarely within the purview of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, known as the New York Convention, according to the Friday opposition brief.”
- “At one point, the reinsurers fired back at Truck’s argument that the case belongs in state court because it involves ‘important matters of New York attorney ethics.’”
- “‘Although Truck would like to cloak its complaint in the garb of attorney ethics, this case has nothing to do with New York’s administrative process for adjudicating purported ethics violations,’ the reinsurers said. Their bid to dismiss Truck’s complaint remains pending in the court.”
- “The present case involves the reinsurers’ selection of New York attorney Jonathan Rosen to serve on the arbitration panel set to consider claims that reinsurers — including certain underwriters at Lloyd’s London, Tenecom Ltd. and Dominion Insurance Co. Ltd. — wrongly withheld millions of dollars’ worth of payments for underlying asbestos injury suits against Truck’s insured.”
- “In its complaint, originally filed in state court and later removed to the Southern District of New York, Truck argues Rosen should be disqualified from the arbitration panel because he advised Truck on its contracts with the reinsurers in 2003. The complaint also brings a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Rosen.”
- “Seeking to remand the suit to state court, Truck argues the federal court did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute under the New York Convention.”
- “Even if it did, the case ‘cries out for abstention’ under the Burford doctrine, which directs federal courts to abstain if their adjudication would disrupt state efforts to establish coherent policy on matters of substantial public concern, Truck argues, telling the court the case implicates the ethical duties of attorneys licensed in New York.”
- “Characterizing that argument as a ‘Hail Mary,’ the reinsurers told the court Friday that applying the Burford abstention doctrine would be ‘categorically improper’ in part because Truck did not bring claims concerning the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.”
- “The reinsurers argue the case instead falls squarely within federal district court’s jurisdiction under the New York Convention because it is ‘intertwined’ with the underlying arbitration proceeding and relates to an arbitration agreement subject to that statute, thus meeting jurisdictional requirements under Sections 203 and 205 of the statute.”
Stephan is the sports journalist for the Maple Grove Report.
