Opioid Judge Appoints Lead Counsel to Negotiate Potential Class Settlement
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Dan Polster appointed Chris Seeger of Seeger Weiss and Jayne Conroy of Simmons Hanly Conroy to serve as interim, co-lead counsel for a proposed negotiation class that would serve as a potential model to settle cases brought over the opioid crisis.
August 19, 2019 at 09:44 PM
5 minute read
A federal judge weighing whether to approve a proposed class to negotiate with defendants over a potential settlement of prescription opioid lawsuits has ordered that only two lawyers, Christopher Seeger and Jayne Conroy, should be at the negotiation table.
In a Monday order, U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of the Northern District of Ohio approved Seeger of Seeger Weiss in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, and Conroy, of New York’s Simmons Hanly Conroy, to serve as interim, co-lead counsel for a proposed negotiation class that would serve as a potential model to settle cases brought over the opioid crisis.
Only those lawyers, he wrote, could “represent the class in settlement negotiations with defendants.” Some of the defendants, he wrote, had claimed that “conflicted lawyers continue to sign the moving papers and propose to continue negotiating for class members.”
In an email, Seeger and Conroy wrote in a combined statement, “We recognize that every day counts in this litigation and in the lives of the victims of the opioid epidemic. This interim appointment is an honor and we are pleased to begin our service immediately.”
Seeger is on the executive committee of the opioid multidistrict litigation, while Conroy’s firm partner, Paul Hanly, is co-lead counsel.
Lead plaintiffs lawyers have filed a motion to certify a “negotiation” class of 33,000 cities and counties suing opioid companies. They floated both Seeger and Conroy as lead class counsel after attorneys general in 39 states, including the District of Columbia and Guam, and some of the defendants, objected to potential conflicts of interest among plaintiffs’ lawyers leading the multidistrict litigation. In particular, the attorneys general wrote, many of the lawyers involved in pitching the negotiation class idea also represented states.
In his order, Polster noted that five of the seven lawyers on the negotiation team represented both the states as well as government entities that would be part of the class. Among them were three members of the opioid executive committee: Elizabeth Cabraser of San Francisco’s Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; Paul Geller of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd of Boca Raton, Florida; and Troy Rafferty of Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty and Proctor in Pensacola, Florida. The other two were Joe Rice of Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, who is co-lead counsel in the opioid MDL, and Russell Budd, managing shareholder of Dallas-based Baron & Budd, whose Los Angeles firm partner, Roland Tellis, is on the executive committee.
“These lawyers therefore have a conflict of interest that bars them from representing and negotiating on behalf of the putative class,” he wrote.
Plaintiffs attorneys brought the motion for certification of the “negotiation” class, which excludes state attorneys general, in June. But after several objections from state attorneys general and defendants, they amended the motion July 9.
Attorneys general and pharmaceutical distributors and pharmacies continued to object, noting that half the class representatives had lawyers who represent states in separate opioid lawsuits. Distributors and pharmacies, in court papers filed last month, called the proposed replacement of lead counsel “no more than a fig leaf,” given that a previously approved settlement committee continued to negotiate with defendants.
“The lawyers appointed in that role include many of the same lawyers who, by reason of their representation of states and other non-class plaintiffs, have been withdrawn as proposed class counsel,” they wrote.
At a hearing earlier this month, Polster appeared likely to grant certification of a proposed “negotiation” class of thousands of cities and counties.
But he also banned all lawyers who represented both a state and a city or county from arguing or filing motions relating to the “negotiation” class proposal. “Those lawyers have a conflict at the moment because all, or most, of the state AGs are opposing this motion,” he said in court.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys also had submitted four lawyers to serve as additional negotiation class counsel: J. Gerard Stranch, a partner at Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings in Nashville, Tennessee; former San Francisco City Attorney Louise Renne; City of New York Corporation Counsel Zachary Carter; and the City of Chicago’s corporation counsel Mark Flessner. Polster, in his order, found that all the lawyers were “well-situated to represent the class” but, for now, limited his order to Seeger and Conroy.
“If and when the court approves the motion for certification of a negotiation class, it will expand the counsel group to encompass all six proposed lawyers,” he wrote.
The judge limited the authority of Seeger and Conroy to negotiations between the proposed class and the defendants, adding that they were “not to interfere with any of the states’ settlement discussions or intrude in allocation discussions between a state and its own counties and cities.”
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 AllAm Law 200 Firm to Defend PUMA in Latest Quarrel Over Patented Shoe Technology
Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Who Got the Work: 16 Lawyers Appointed to BioLab Class Action Litigation
4 minute readAttorneys Go to DC Federal Court Seeking Damages for Plaintiffs in Oct. 7, 2023, Attack on Israel
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome', DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
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