Tucker v. Harcros Chemicals Inc. et al (Case consolidated for discovery; all non-dispositive filings to be made in the lead case - 2:25-cv-02352-KHV-ADM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
VANESSA TUCKER, individually and on behalf )
of those similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION
v. )
) No. 25-2569-KHV
HARCROS CHEMICALS INC, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________________)
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Philips North America LLC (f/k/a Philips
Electronics North America Corporation)’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing and Failure to
State a Claim (Doc. #36) filed January 9, 2026.
Having carefully considered the parties’ positions, the Court finds that the motion should
be sustained for lack of jurisdiction under Article III of the United States Constitution. The Court
substantially adopts the reasons set forth on pages 2 through 12 of the Memorandum in Support of
Defendant Philips North America LLC (f/k/a Philips Electronics North America Corporation)’s
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing and Failure to State a Claim (Doc. #37) filed January 9,
2026 and Sections I, III and IV of the Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc.
#45) which Philips North America LLC filed March 5, 2026.
Between plaintiff’s failure to allege any injury in fact, the fact that Kansas has never
recognized a free-standing cause of action for medical monitoring and the preclusive effect of the
Kansas statute of repose, K.S.A. § 60-513(b), plaintiff has no legally cognizable injury which is
sufficient to create standing under Article III. As a result, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.
Case 2:25-cv-02569-KHV-ADM Document 50 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 3

-2-
In these circumstances, for two reasons, it would be improper and imprudent to certify to
the Kansas Supreme Court the questions (1) whether Kansas would recognize Court-supervised
medical monitoring relief through a Court-administered monitoring program or fund; (2) if so,
whether such relief is a remedy upon proof of an underlying tort or may be pursued as an
independent cause of action (or both); and (3) what, if any, statutes of limitations and statutes of
repose might govern such claims for relief. First, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
enter such an order. And second, unless the Kansas Supreme Court were to also re-invent the
statute of repose, plaintiff would still have no legally cognizable injury and any opinion about
medical monitoring claims would be purely advisory.
As a matter of discretion, the Court also declines to certify the question to the Kansas
Supreme Court because (1) Kansas law is not necessarily unsettled or unclear, it is simply contrary
to plaintiff’s position; (2) certification is a time-consuming and expensive process, and this Court
has serious questions whether the Kansas Supreme Court would wade into this issue (which is
perhaps more properly one for the Kansas legislature); (3) on this record, because of the statute of
repose, creating a cause of action for medical monitoring would not necessarily benefit this
plaintiff; and (4) failure to certify at this stage does not prevent the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals,
to which this ruling is inevitably destined, from taking another look at whether to certify.
In light of these conclusions, the Court need not address defendant’s further arguments that
the complaint alleges no facts which could support the imposition of liability under a veil-piercing
or successor theory of liability and does not plausibly allege the elements of a medical monitoring
claim “as argued under out-of-state law.”
Because this case is headed for appeal and the Tenth Circuit will review de novo the legal
basis for this holding, the motion to dismiss presents no factual issues, the law is well settled and
Case 2:25-cv-02569-KHV-ADM Document 50 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 3

-3-
the Court has other pressing business, it renders this truncated ruling to advance the just, speedy
and inexpensive determination of this action under Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Philips North America LLC (f/k/a
Philips Electronics North America Corporation)’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing and
Failure to State a Claim (Doc. #36) filed January 9, 2026 is SUSTAINED.
Dated this 9th day of April, 2026 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02569-KHV-ADM Document 50 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 3