Alabama Opioid Dismissal Over Jurisdiction Affects Florida, Other States
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall moved to voluntarily dismiss his opioid lawsuit after a judge questioned whether he had federal jurisdiction over the case.
June 13, 2019 at 06:37 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Alabama voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against several opioid companies after the federal judge questioned whether he had jurisdiction, an issue disputed by Florida and other states.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall filed the motion Wednesday, citing a June 6 order from U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of the Northern District of Ohio seeking additional briefing on whether he has jurisdiction to hear the case. It was dropped two days ahead of the filing deadline.
Marshall asked that the judge grant the motion without prejudice.
“Because jurisdictional defects can be raised at any time, at any level of the proceedings, Alabama believes that it is in the courts' and the parties' best interests to dismiss Alabama's original action so that it can be refiled, rather than allow jurisdictional issues to resurface post-trial and/or on appeal, if any,” he wrote.
The decision is significant because Alabama was the only state pursuing its opioid case in the multidistrict litigation before Polster, who granted discovery in the case that attorneys general in other states could potentially use. The vast majority of the more than 1,800 lawsuits in the MDL were filed by cities and counties seeking to recoup the costs of medical treatment and law enforcement. Native American tribes, hospitals and others have brought their own lawsuits.
Marshall's office and its outside counsel, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Alabama, had no comment by deadline. Lead plaintiffs counsel in the MDL wrote in an email, “The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the federal court to hear the case, so Alabama decided to refile at the state level.”
Marshall sued opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma in 2018. Among other things, the suit, amended to include Endo Health Solutions Inc. and McKesson Corp., sought punitive damages, civil penalties and disgorgement of Purdue's “unjust enrichment and ill-gotten gains.” Thirty-five states filed amicus briefs supporting Alabama's opposition to dismissal, including Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and the District of Columbia.
Other attorneys general filed lawsuits in state courts. Last month, a judge dismissed North Dakota's case against Purdue, and Oklahoma began the first trial in the nation with claims against Johnson & Johnson.
In his order, Polster noted Alabama's complaint, most of which alleged state law claims, tied federal jurisdiction to its unjust enrichment claim. McKesson, in a motion to dismiss the case, raised the defense that “there is no such thing as a federal common law claim for unjust enrichment,” the judge wrote. McKesson attorney Geoffrey Hobart, a Washington partner at Covington & Burling, who filed the motion a year ago, did not respond to a request for comment.
“If it is true, the court does not have jurisdiction over the Alabama case,” Polster wrote when he ordered a new round of supplemental briefs on the issue.
In an unusual move, Polster also ordered supplemental briefs on a separate matter: whether certification is appropriate for class actions brought on behalf of opioid-addicted babies across the nation.
“The court is aware that defendants do not believe class certification is appropriate in any of the NAS cases,” Polster wrote, referring to babies born with neonatal abstinence syndrome. “Moreover, the question of NAS class certification may affect ongoing settlement discussions.”
He told defendants to file a single motion to strike the class allegations by July 22, with plaintiffs due to respond by Aug. 19.
Scott Bickford of Martzell, Bickford & Centola in New Orleans, who filed the class actions seeking seek a trust of more than $1 billion to help pay for medical monitoring of the children, called the judge's order an “aberrant procedural method in which to deal with our claims.”
“We didn't get notice of his order from class counsel or were even informed of the hearing by liaison counsel,” he said. As to the order, he said: “We're studying it and trying to determine how we will respond at this time.”
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 AllPlaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readUS Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
3 minute readRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gunderson Dettmer Opens Atlanta Office With 3 Partners From Morris Manning
- 2Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 3Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 4Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 5Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
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