Welcome to Critical Mass, Law.com's weekly briefing for class action and mass tort attorneys. More than 40 lawyers packed a San Francisco courtroom to argue why they should lead the lawsuits against Juul. The next opioid trial is set for Jan. 20 in New York, but many more cases are waiting in the wings. Find out which lawyer appeared for a defendant sued over the Zantac recall.

Feel free to reach out to me with your input. You can email me at [email protected], or follow me on Twitter: @abronstadlaw

SPONSORED BY ALM

Thought Leader in Emergent Opportunities Added to Legalweek Keynote Lineup

With a gift of clearly explaining complex—and confusing—technologies, Blockchain researcher Bettina Warburg (Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Warburg Serres Investments and Animal Ventures) joins the keynote line up at Legalweek New York. READ MORE

Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

Jousting for a Job on the Juul Lawsuits.

More than 40 lawyers packed a San Francisco courtroom last week to convince a federal judge to appoint them to lead the multidistrict litigation against e-cigarette maker Juul Labs. They had two minutes each to make their case before U.S. District Judge William Orrick III.

My colleague, Ross Todd, who was at the hearing, told me:

"The message you heard from everyone was 'urgency.' There were a lot of people touting their experience trying tobacco cases and a handful touting their experience working on the opioid MDL. The judge had asked everyone speaking to suggest what could be done to get the case moving quickly. Most of the plaintiffs called for early bellwether trials." In the end, Orrick selected four lawyers as interim co-leads: Sarah London (Lieff Cabraser), Dena Sharp (Girard Sharp), Ellen Relkin (Weitz & Luxenberg) and Dean Kawamoto (Keller Rohrback). But the judge hasn't yet named a final leadership team.

One lawyer whose name came up at the hearing was Bradley Honnold (Goza & Honnold). He told the judge that three of his four sons were addicted to nicotine because of e-cigarettes. I reached out to Honnold to talk about his experience. Here's what he told me:

"I told Judge Orrick I felt one of the reasons I was qualified to work on the case was because I had unique personal experience, and my children had used these products, and I've seen it play out. I've seen it play out in my household, in their lives, in their peer group's lives, and in local schools. That personal experience is what led me to be versed in the realities of this case and the science and history of the advertising, all of that, and led me to really try to turn to my fellow lawyers and say, 'This is where we need to stand.'"

Lawyers Ready for 2020 Opioid Trials

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed to review certification of a "negotiation" class action over the opioid crisis—a controversial idea concocted by lead plaintiffs' attorneys in the multidistrict litigation, and approved by the judge, to get all the parties closer to a global settlement. But, in the meantime, opioid lawsuits are moving toward trials.

Here is a quick recap:

*A judge in New York has scheduled the next trial over the opioid crisis for Jan. 20. The state of New York and two Long Island counties, Nassau and Suffolk, have sued several opioid defendants, including Johnson & Johnson, Cardinal Health and Walgreens.

*In the only trial over the opioid crisis, a judge issued a $572 million verdict for Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter in his public nuisance case against Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson, however, is hoping to limit its liability, which Oklahoma's governor has objected to in a proposed amicus brief.

*Meanwhile, in the MDL, after the first jury trial over the opioid crisis settled last month for $260 million, lawyers are hammering out which case should go next. Among those slated for possible 2020 trials are cities, counties and Native American tribes in California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, Oklahoma and West Virginia.

I reached out to Adam Moskowitz (The Moskowitz Law Firm), who wants a Florida trial in a case brought by West Boca Medical Center and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. He told me:

"We have a great team of lawyers that will hopefully be selected to try this case. The lawyer running all of the hospital cases in our MDL is Don Barrett, who joined our request for the consolidated bellwether and has served as lead counsel in some of the largest MDLs in the country and is a nationally recognized great trial lawyer. My co-counsel is Bill Scherer who has obtained some of the largest verdicts here in South Florida and argued the Bush v. Gore case."

Who Got the Work?

Paul Schmidt (Covington & Burling) was the first defense counsel to appear before the U.S. Judicial on Multidistrict Litigation in a motion to transfer at least 18 lawsuits brought over recall of heartburn medication Zantac. His client, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., is one of several companies sued after the FDA discovered Zantac contained an ingredient that could cause cancer. The others include Sanofi, which issued last month's recall, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. Appearances before the MDL panel are due Nov. 20.

Here's what else is going on:

GOAL! A federal judge kicked a gender discrimination lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation into high gear by granting certification of a class action brought by members of the U.S. Women's National Team. Co-captains Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe and Carli Lloyd are among the plaintiffs leading the class action, which alleges women soccer players systematically receive less pay than their male counterparts. U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner of the Central District of California struck down U.S. Soccer's argument that the players lacked standing because they made more money than the highest-paid players on the Men's National Team.

SCOTUS Skips Out: The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to take up a petition by Remington to overturn a ruling that allowed lawsuits against the gun manufacturer by the families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting in 2012. The Connecticut Supreme Court, in March, rejected Remington's argument that the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shielded it from liability. The claims now go forward under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Oh Snap! Congress will host its first hearing on Thursday over the increasing trend of "snap removals" to federal court. The practice, which has become more common as courts shift to electronic filing, is when defendants remove cases from state court prior to service of the complaint. Two federal appeals courts have condoned the practice. Among the witnesses planning to appear before the U.S. House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, are Ellen Relkin (Weitz & Luxenberg), who is fighting "snap removals" of her lawsuits brought in New Jersey state courts over Stryker hip implant products, and Arthur Hellman (University of Pittsburgh School of Law), who has written on the topic.

Thanks for reading Critical Mass. I'll see you next week!