A federal judge overseeing nearly 2,000 lawsuits brought over the opioid crisis called a potential settlement proposal introduced by plaintiffs' attorneys a “novel idea,” but held off ruling on the motion to allow time for objections.

U.S. District Judge Dan Polster had planned to hear arguments on Tuesday about a motion for certification of a “negotiation class” that lead plaintiffs' lawyers in the multidistrict litigation had filed earlier this month. But, on Monday, several opioid distributors and pharmacies named as defendants in the cases filed court documents opposing the idea. Attorneys general from 30 states, the U.S. territory of Guam and Washington, D.C., whose cases aren't part of the multidistrict litigation, also filed letters on Monday urging Polster to reject what they called a “novel and untested approach” to settlement.

Polster acknowledged the filings while praising the efforts of lawyers in their attempts to resolve “the most complex constellation of cases that have ever been filed.”

“It's never been tried, but that doesn't mean it is wrong,” he said of the plaintiffs' idea. “We need novel solutions to a novel problem.”

➤➤ Want deeper coverage of class action and mass tort litigation. Sign up here for Critical Mass by Amanda Bronstad. 

Two lawyers on the plaintiffs' executive committee, Elizabeth Cabraser and Paul Geller, told Polster that not only had defendants and attorneys general raised concerns, but cities and counties had weighed in with potential revisions. As a result, they agreed to delay approval of their idea to give more time for everyone.

“This schedule gives an additional chance for input,” said Cabraser, of San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein. “It gives us an opportunity to address input we've received so far and incorporate ideas to improve and refine the motion and also to give time to the attorneys general as they requested.”

Adopting the plaintiffs' schedule, Polster said attorneys should file an amended motion for certification by July 9, with objections due on July 23.

He set a new hearing for Aug. 6, at which time he said he plans to rule.

The proposal by the lead plaintiffs' attorneys sets up a procedure in which 24,500 cities, counties and other smaller governments could resolve their claims while providing some assurances to defendants—manufacturers and distributors of the prescription painkillers, as well as pharmacies—about the total scope of lawsuits that are out there.

The motion is unlike most certifications of class actions because it comes before any settlement, yet lawyers would not use the class to pursue litigation.

At Tuesday's hearing, Geller, a partner in Boca Raton, Florida, for Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, said the idea was not “quite as adventurous as some people have commented.”

“It's simply an opportunity to create an option for defendants if they so choose to negotiate,” he said.

In opposition papers filed on Monday, distributor defendants McKesson Corp., AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., Cardinal Health Inc. and Prescription Supply Inc. said they were open to a potential settlement, but not through the method that plaintiffs had proposed. Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure, they wrote, does not authorize a “negotiation class,” which, under the structure proposed by the plaintiffs, would require supermajority votes involving six different “pools” of class members to approve a nationwide deal, an unlikely scenario to ensure a settlement.

“While the proposal embodied in this motion is creative, it is fatally flawed, both legally and practically,” wrote their lawyers. “For this and other reasons, these defendants, although highly respectful of the settlement process, would be unlikely to participate in settlement discussions with this class as currently proposed.”

A separate objection by a group of pharmacies, including CVS and Rite Aid, cited similar concerns about the proposal, which they said was “riddled with insurmountable practical obstacles.”

The proposal excluded hundreds of lawsuits in the MDL, including those by unions and Native American tribes. It also excluded the states but named three representatives to be part of a team that would negotiate with attorneys general over possible allocations of funds, should they reach their own settlements.

In a letter on Monday, one group of attorneys general from 24 states, including California, Delaware and Georgia, said they had “very limited opportunity to review and analyze” the proposal and sought to postpone any ruling for three weeks. A second letter outlined several concerns about the idea, such as potential issues involving state sovereignty, allocation of funds, lengthy appeals and excessive attorney fees.

“Although the States share the desire to resolve the many cases that have been filed, they respectfully submit that the proposal to create a federal 'negotiation class' in this complex series of matters only promotes more uncertainty, more litigation, and less potential for resolution than if the states' efforts were not impeded,” wrote attorneys general from another group. That group included 24 states, some of them the same that sought the delay, as well as others, such as Florida and Connecticut.

At Tuesday's hearing, Polster continued to press both sides to reach a settlement.

“Nobody has the ability or capability to try all of these cases, which means the vast majority want to be settled or dismissed,” he said. “As for settlement, the only thing everyone has agreed upon is the cases can't be settled piecemeal, one at a time.”

He also continued to insist that the courts should not be the ones to fix the opioid crisis, noting that legislators, the governor and the attorney general in Oklahoma came up with a structure to resolve their differences and obtain court approval on Monday of an $85 million settlement with opioid manufacturer Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.

“Developing solutions to combat a social crisis such as the opioid epidemic should not be the task of our judicial branch,” he said. “It's the job of the executive and legislative branches.”

Polster also held a second hearing later on Tuesday about upcoming motions for summary judgment and experts in the first bellwether trial in the multidistrict litigation, set for Oct. 21.