MDL Panel Orders All Federal Opioid Cases to Ohio
A federal judicial panel has ordered nearly 180 government lawsuits filed against opioid manufacturers and distributors to be transferred to a judge in Ohio.
December 05, 2017 at 07:50 PM
10 minute read
A federal judicial panel has ordered nearly 180 government lawsuits filed against opioid manufacturers and distributors to be transferred to a judge in Ohio.
Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation means that all federal lawsuits brought by cities, counties, states and other governmental units over the opioid crisis will be sent to U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of the Northern District of Ohio, a 1998 appointee of President Bill Clinton.
The panel, in an unusually lengthy opinion, found common facts among all the cases.
“All of the actions can be expected to implicate common fact questions to the allegedly improper marketing and widespread diversion of prescription opioids into states, counties and cities across the nation, and discovery likely will be voluminous,” wrote panel chairwoman Sarah Vance. “Although individualized factual issues may arise in each action, such issues do not—especially at this early stage of litigation—negate the efficiencies to be gained by centralization.”
The panel suggested that Polster could establish separate tracks in the MDL or, in some circumstances, remand certain cases. “As this litigation progresses, it may become apparent that certain types of actions or claims could be more efficiently handled in the actions 'respective transferor courts,'” Vance wrote.
The ruling is a big win for a team of plaintiffs lawyers led by West Virginia attorney James Peterson of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, Russell Budd of Baron & Budd and Mike Papantonio of Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor.
“I think Judge Polster will be a great judge for this case,” said Baron & Budd's Burton LeBlanc, whose team has pushed for U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus of the Southern District of Ohio or U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle of the Southern District of Illinois.
Most other plaintiffs firms had supported an MDL, though in other districts, and some opposed transferring the cases—at least, immediately.
Opioids, prescription painkillers including Percocet and OxyContin, have surged in cases of addiction and overdoses, and have been linked to more than 183,000 deaths from 1999 to 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The five primary opioid manufacturers—Purdue Pharma, Teva Pharmaceutical Ltd., Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc. and Allergan—all supported an MDL but in Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania.
Three distributors, AmerisourceBergen Corp., Cardinal Health Inc. and McKesson Corp., wanted the cases to go to U.S. District Judge David Faber of the Southern District of West Virginia.
Other venues under consideration were in courts in Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.
In selecting Ohio, the panel noted the state's “strong factual connection to this litigation, given that it has experienced a significant rise in the number of opioid-related overdoses in the past several years and expended significant sums in dealing with the effects of the opioid epidemic.”
Stay up-to-speed on mass torts and multi-district litigation with Critical Mass, Law.com's all-new briefing by Amanda Bronstad. Learn more and sign up here.
A federal judicial panel has ordered nearly 180 government lawsuits filed against opioid manufacturers and distributors to be transferred to a judge in Ohio.
Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation means that all federal lawsuits brought by cities, counties, states and other governmental units over the opioid crisis will be sent to U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of the Northern District of Ohio, a 1998 appointee of President Bill Clinton.
The panel, in an unusually lengthy opinion, found common facts among all the cases.
“All of the actions can be expected to implicate common fact questions to the allegedly improper marketing and widespread diversion of prescription opioids into states, counties and cities across the nation, and discovery likely will be voluminous,” wrote panel chairwoman Sarah Vance. “Although individualized factual issues may arise in each action, such issues do not—especially at this early stage of litigation—negate the efficiencies to be gained by centralization.”
The panel suggested that Polster could establish separate tracks in the MDL or, in some circumstances, remand certain cases. “As this litigation progresses, it may become apparent that certain types of actions or claims could be more efficiently handled in the actions 'respective transferor courts,'” Vance wrote.
The ruling is a big win for a team of plaintiffs lawyers led by West
“I think Judge Polster will be a great judge for this case,” said
Most other plaintiffs firms had supported an MDL, though in other districts, and some opposed transferring the cases—at least, immediately.
Opioids, prescription painkillers including Percocet and OxyContin, have surged in cases of addiction and overdoses, and have been linked to more than 183,000 deaths from 1999 to 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The five primary opioid manufacturers—Purdue Pharma, Teva Pharmaceutical Ltd.,
Three distributors,
Other venues under consideration were in courts in Missouri, New Jersey,
In selecting Ohio, the panel noted the state's “strong factual connection to this litigation, given that it has experienced a significant rise in the number of opioid-related overdoses in the past several years and expended significant sums in dealing with the effects of the opioid epidemic.”
Stay up-to-speed on mass torts and multi-district litigation with Critical Mass, Law.com's all-new briefing by Amanda Bronstad. Learn more and sign up here.
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 All'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute read5th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
5 minute readDOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
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