Government Claims Against Opioid Makers in Key Case 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
© 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 AllLitigators of the Week: The Delaware Supreme Court Turns Its Spotlight on Advance Notice Bylaws
Litigator of the (Past) Week: SCOTUS Unanimously Preserves Access to Abortion Pill Mifepristone
Litigators of the Week: A Defense Verdict in Cook County in the First Zantac Trial
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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