A 'Landslide Endorsement': Less Than 2% of Governments Opt Out of Opioid Class Action
About 1.6% of the more than 34,000 potential class members opted out of the so-called "negotiation" class, according to a Monday court filing. Lead attorney Jayne Conroy called the turnout a "landslide endorsement" of the novel idea.
December 03, 2019 at 03:48 PM
5 minute read
About 1.6% of counties and other governments across the country have opted out of a class action designed to reach a global settlement over the opioid crisis—a turnout that one lead lawyer called a "landslide endorsement."
According to a report filed late Monday, 541 out of 34,000 governments as of Nov. 27 had opted out of the novel class, approved by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of the Northern District of Ohio in September. In response, co-lead counsel have labeled the class notice program a success that "has provided more than adequate notice to members of the negotiation class," according to Monday's filing.
"We're just thrilled. It's a landslide endorsement," said Jayne Conroy, one of two interim co-leads appointed for the class. "What we now have from the plaintiffs' perspective is an enormous group of sophisticated and active decision-makers who have all made a decision to remain in a negotiation class, and we have a way to reach out to them and discuss any potential settlement offers that would come our way. We have a very active, sophisticated and participating group of municipalities, government entities, counties and cities, who can now act as one."
Last month, ahead of a Nov. 22 deadline, Conroy predicted that there would be few opt-outs, even though some large counties, such as Harris County in Texas and Florida's Palm Beach County, announced plans to do so.
The unprecedented "negotiation" class is a master case designed to resolve all opioid lawsuits against drug companies and pharmacies. Polster certified the class Sept. 11 as part of a multidistrict litigation proceeding involving 2,400 opioid lawsuits, but more than 34,000 governments could participate in the class, even if they have not filed opioid lawsuits. If they do not opt out, cities and counties would be part of the class.
Although no settlement exists, lawyers for the class used a hypothetical $1 billion settlement to calculate an estimated dollar figure for each government.
"We had significant discussions with many, many government entities who decided to stay in, and they're all suffering from the opioid epidemic and anxious for anything to alleviate some of the pain. We heard that overwhelmingly again and again," said Conroy, who said she was on calls with hundreds of individuals from counties and cities across the country.
Class counsel expected additional opt-outs through this week but "the vast bulk of the exclusion requests likely have been received at this point," according to Monday's filing.
Deborah Hensler, a professor at Stanford Law School, called the opt-out rate typical for class actions, "which in this very atypical class procedure is notable."
"Where we see class actions with large numbers of opt-outs there are usually one or a few lawyers who have representation agreements with those class members, are very knowledgeable about the litigation, believe strongly that their clients will secure better outcomes through litigation or settlement outside the class action and therefore advise them to opt out," she wrote in an email. "That the opt-out rate here is so low suggests to me that there aren't many lawyers out there who believe that is the case here."
The 49 class representatives in the master case include major cities such as Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Conroy, of New York's Simmons Hanly Conroy, also noted that the city of New York and Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago, are staying in the class.
The "negotiation" class is novel because it comes prior to any settlement but, also, is not for pursuing litigation. In most cases, judges certify class actions under those two circumstances, but lead plaintiffs lawyers in the opioid multidistrict litigation insisted that the proposal fits within the confines of the Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure, which governs class actions.
The idea has faced criticism—most notably, from the drug companies and pharmacies that are defendants in the lawsuits. The defendants, and six Ohio cities, separately petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to reverse certification of the class. The Sixth Circuit agreed to take up the interlocutory appeal last month.
The "negotiation" class also excludes states, many of which opposed the idea. More than a month ago, a potential $48 billion global settlement fell apart after lead counsel in the multidistrict litigation, most of whom represent cities and counties, would not agree to the deal, hammered out by attorneys general in the states of North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas.
Conroy said settlement talks are ongoing.
"The endorsement of the class has nothing to do with the endorsement of an unknown settlement offer," she said. "But it tells me if we ever do receive a settlement offer to bring to the class, we have a very involved and active group of class members that will be anxious to vote on such an offer."
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 All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute read'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute read'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 2For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 3As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 4General Warrants and ESI
- 5GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
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