Panel Rejects Separate Opioid MDL for Addicted Babies
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation refused to transfer class actions brought on behalf of 40 percent of the nation's opioid-addicted babies, concluding there would be “substantial overlap” with the opioid multidistrict litigation it created a year ago.
December 07, 2018 at 06:26 PM
4 minute read
Lawyers seeking to create a $1 billion medical monitoring trust for babies born addicted to opioids lost their bid to create a separate multidistrict litigation proceeding.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in an order Thursday refused to transfer class actions brought on behalf of 40 percent of the nation's opioid-addicted babies, the latest group of plaintiffs suing manufacturers and distributors over a nationwide epidemic tied to the prescription painkillers. The panel concluded that there would be “substantial overlap” with the multidistrict litigation it created a year ago for opioid lawsuits.
“Few efficiencies will be gained by creating a new MDL for NAS plaintiffs,” wrote the panel, referring to neonatal abstinence syndrome that afflicts opioid-addicted babies. “The progress of both MDLs likely would be hindered by the need for two judges to attend to overlapping discovery matters, rule on redundant motion practice and administer both MDLs separately.”
A coalition of eight law firms representing the babies insist they seek different remedies than those sought by the cities and counties that make up the majority of the opioid MDL, which is before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in the Northern District of Ohio. For one thing, they want a $1 billion trust to pay for medical monitoring of the babies over the next few decades, rather than reimbursement for damages and injunctive relief.
Supporting their request for a separate MDL were various child welfare groups acting as amici, including March of Dimes and the Child Welfare League of America. Those groups filed briefs before the MDL panel, which rarely sees amicus briefs.
“We are reviewing the decision and determining our path forward,” wrote Scott Bickford of New Orleans-based Martzell, Bickford & Centola, who argued before the MDL panel Nov. 29. “One thing is clear: babies born with NAS must have separate representation and a medical monitoring trust to get the justice and relief they specifically need. It is not in anyone's interest for their claims to be warehoused in Cleveland.”
The dispute reflects the myriad assortment of plaintiffs suing over opioids, which have led to a public health crisis of record deaths and addiction. While cities and counties have dominated the litigation, hospitals, Native American tribes and others have elbowed their cases into the MDL.
On May 31, lawyers for the babies, whose cases were predominantly transferred to the MDL, sought a separate track of discovery. Polster rejected that motion June 28, and they renewed it Aug. 21.
In their petition before the MDL panel, the lawyers claimed that the baby cases are distinct, and that the attorneys on the executive committee leading the MDL have refused to share discovery with them. As a result, they wrote, lawyers had “grave concerns that the due process rights of opioid-dependent infants are not being protected.”
They sought an MDL in West Virginia or Illinois.
Lawyers for the distributor and manufacturing defendants opposed the request, which they called a “blatant attempt at forum-shopping” and “dangerous precedent.”
“The NAS plaintiffs' arguments are fundamentally about case management concerns, although they dress them up in constitutional garb,” wrote lawyers for the distributors in an Oct. 12 filing.
In its order, the panel agreed, but acknowledged the plaintiffs' lawyers' concerns.
“The identity of plaintiffs and their unique damages—which plaintiffs and amici assert include the need for a medical monitoring trust that funds prolonged, multidisciplinary care—do indeed differentiate these cases from those brought by cities, counties and states that compromise the bulk of MDL No. 2804,” the panel wrote. “But these differences among claims and requested relief, in our opinion, do not justify the creation of a new MDL.”
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 AllPlaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
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