Judge Recommends Government Claims Against Opioid Makers Go Forward
A federal magistrate judge issued his recommendation in a key lawsuit brought against opioid manufacturers and distributors, as well as pharmacies.
October 05, 2018 at 06:54 PM
3 minute read
A federal magistrate judge has recommended that a key lawsuit brought over the opioid epidemic go forward, refusing to dismiss the case against several opioid manufacturers and distributors, as well as pharmacies.
U.S. Magistrate Judge David Ruiz, who is working with U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in the opioid multidistrict litigation, which is in the Northern District of Ohio, issued his report and recommendation on Friday. The order keeps in place a consolidated complaint's racketeering claims and rejected the idea that local governments, rather than addicted individuals, didn't have standing to sue the defendant companies for conspiring through their marketing and distribution of the prescription painkillers, which have caused addictions and deaths throughout the country.
“Plaintiffs, local governments, have been impacted by the opioid epidemic,” he wrote. “Their injuries, alleged to be caused by the defendants' conspiracy to dramatically increase the usage and supply of opioids for off-label purposes, to some extent, stem from ills associated with opioid use and/or addiction. The connection between their injuries and the defendants' alleged racketeering and fraudulent activity is not so attenuated, as their injuries plainly stem from opioid use/abuse and not some possible other source. This court cannot find, absent any discovery, that plaintiffs' injuries were incidental to the alleged fraud or the oversupply/diversion of opioids. While defendants' alleged actions caused harm to others (i.e. those who became addicted to opioids), the ensuing harm to plaintiffs—the costs associated with responding to and working to stem the opioid epidemic—cannot be deemed incidental.”
Three lawyers on the plaintiffs' leadership committee of the multidistrict litigation—Paul Farrell of Greene, Ketchum, Farrell, Bailey & Tweel in Huntington, West Virginia; Paul Hanly of Simmons Hanly Conroy in New York; and Joseph Rice of Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina— issued a statement responding to the ruling: “This is a major step forward for the over 1,000 communities working to hold the pharmaceutical industry accountable for the countless lives that have been lost to opioid addition. This litigation is the most effective way to secure the resources communities need to address the opioid epidemic for decades to come. We anticipate Judge Polster will issue a final ruling on these motions at the earliest possible time.”
The defendants filed motions to dismiss earlier this year in the consolidated complaint, which combines claims by various bellwether cities and counties in Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Michigan and West Virginia.
The ruling also refused to grant dismissal on federal pre-emption grounds but did recommend tossing some of the public nuisance claims.
Earlier this week, a state court judge tossed public nuisance claims in the state of New Jersey's case against opioid maker Purdue Pharma.
In August, however, another state judge refused to dismiss claims in the state of Ohio's case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
2 minute readFinancial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250