Judge Recommends Government Claims Against Opioid Makers Go Forward
A federal magistrate judge issued his recommendation in a key lawsuit brought against opioid manufacturers and distributors, as well as pharmacies.
October 05, 2018 at 06:54 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A federal magistrate judge has recommended that a key lawsuit brought over the opioid epidemic go forward, refusing to dismiss the case against several opioid manufacturers and distributors, as well as pharmacies.
U.S. Magistrate Judge David Ruiz, who is working with U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in the opioid multidistrict litigation, which is in the Northern District of Ohio, issued his report and recommendation on Friday. The order keeps in place a consolidated complaint's racketeering claims and rejected the idea that local governments, rather than addicted individuals, didn't have standing to sue the defendant companies for conspiring through their marketing and distribution of the prescription painkillers, which have caused addictions and deaths throughout the country.
“Plaintiffs, local governments, have been impacted by the opioid epidemic,” he wrote. “Their injuries, alleged to be caused by the defendants' conspiracy to dramatically increase the usage and supply of opioids for off-label purposes, to some extent, stem from ills associated with opioid use and/or addiction. The connection between their injuries and the defendants' alleged racketeering and fraudulent activity is not so attenuated, as their injuries plainly stem from opioid use/abuse and not some possible other source. This court cannot find, absent any discovery, that plaintiffs' injuries were incidental to the alleged fraud or the oversupply/diversion of opioids. While defendants' alleged actions caused harm to others (i.e. those who became addicted to opioids), the ensuing harm to plaintiffs—the costs associated with responding to and working to stem the opioid epidemic—cannot be deemed incidental.”
Three lawyers on the plaintiffs' leadership committee of the multidistrict litigation—Paul Farrell of Greene, Ketchum, Farrell, Bailey & Tweel in Huntington, West Virginia; Paul Hanly of Simmons Hanly Conroy in New York; and Joseph Rice of Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina— issued a statement responding to the ruling: “This is a major step forward for the over 1,000 communities working to hold the pharmaceutical industry accountable for the countless lives that have been lost to opioid addition. This litigation is the most effective way to secure the resources communities need to address the opioid epidemic for decades to come. We anticipate Judge Polster will issue a final ruling on these motions at the earliest possible time.”
The defendants filed motions to dismiss earlier this year in the consolidated complaint, which combines claims by various bellwether cities and counties in Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Michigan and West Virginia.
The ruling also refused to grant dismissal on federal pre-emption grounds but did recommend tossing some of the public nuisance claims.
Earlier this week, a state court judge tossed public nuisance claims in the state of New Jersey's case against opioid maker Purdue Pharma.
In August, however, another state judge refused to dismiss claims in the state of Ohio's case.
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
© 2025 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 AllVedder Price Shareholder Javier Lopez Appointed to Miami Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board
2 minute readCrypto Entrepreneur Claims Justice Department’s Software Crackdown Violates US Constitution
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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