Attorneys for CT Cities Pledge Fight Against Move to Opioid MDL
More than 20 Connecticut municipalities have sued the nation's largest drugmakers for fueling the state's opioid crisis.
January 24, 2018 at 06:18 PM
3 minute read
Attorneys for nearly two dozen Connecticut municipalities suing pharmaceutical companies for allegedly fueling the state's opioid epidemic say they will fight any attempt to bring those lawsuits into the multidistrict litigation in Ohio.
The pharmaceutical companies have made legal motions to refer the cases to the state's complex litigation docket in Connecticut—a possible precursor to moving them into the MDL. If the judges in complex litigation decide to move the lawsuits to Ohio, where about 180 similar opioid cases currently stand, it could have a negative impact on Connecticut municipalities, the attorneys said Wednesday.
“Our cases would stall in the MDL,” said Judy Scolnick, a partner with Scott + Scott in New York City, whose firm filed lawsuits on behalf of New Haven and New Britain. “When you go into MDL you never come out.”
Specifically, Scolnick noted, Dan Polster, the judge overseeing the MDL in the Northern District of Ohio, has made it clear he wants to settle nearly 200 cases. Settling the cases, Scolnick said, may shortchange what the municipalities could receive in damages compared to going to trial in Connecticut.
“Cases that have fraud, like these, always get worse (for the defense) when you go into discovery,” Scolnick said. “There could be more wrongdoing shown after discovery and that might not be unveiled if you settle.”
Don Broggi, a partner with Scott + Scott, said more municipal lawsuits will be filed in the state, and that there's a better chance for relief by keeping the litigation in front of Connecticut jurors.
“Our cases are really strong because of the conduct of the defendants,” Broggi said. “They are in craven pursuit of billions of dollars at the expense of people's lives. They have negatively affected the lives of tens of thousands of people in Connecticut.”
The suits cite deceptive marketing campaigns by the big pharmaceutical companies to mislead the public about the dangers of prescription opioids.
New Haven, New Britain, Bridgeport and Waterbury each have pending litigation. Those communities are represented by attorneys from Simmons Hanly Conroy in New York City and Drubner, Hartley & Hellman in Waterbury. The two firms have also filed a lawsuit on behalf of 17 smaller Connecticut municipalities. Paul Hanly, of Simmons Hanly, is co-lead counsel in the MDL.
“These cases are not federal cases and should stay in Connecticut,” said Jim Hartley Jr., a partner with Drubner Hartley. Similar to Scolnick and Broggi, Hartley said he wants the Connecticut municipalities to have their day in court.
“These communities need to be heard,” Hartley said, adding, “These are the communities that have been ravished by the epidemic. They deserve to have a forum.”
Scolnick said it's difficult to calculate how much money could be at stake, but said it could be hundreds of millions of dollars in Connecticut alone.
According to the fee agreement between Waterbury and Simmons Hanly and Drubner Hartley, the law firms could get a third of any damages received. The firms get nothing if there are no damages awarded.
Connecticut has the 12th highest number of opioid deaths in the country as of 2015, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The defendants include Purdue Pharma, Endo Health and Teva.
Company officials have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
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 AllFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute readFederal Judge Weighs In on School's Discipline for 'Explicitly Copying AI-Generated Text' on Project
When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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