NY Opioid Litigation on Fast Track as Judge Rules Counties May Press Claims Against Distributors
A New York judge presiding over the state courts' multicounty opioid litigation in Suffolk County brought on behalf of a coalition of New York counties, which is being closely watched by courts in other jurisdictions around the country, has refused to toss claims against drug distributors.
July 17, 2018 at 06:51 PM
4 minute read
Bottles of Purdue Pharma OxyContin, an opioid medication. Photo: George Frey/Bloomberg LP A New York judge presiding over the state courts' multicounty opioid litigation in Suffolk County brought on behalf of a coalition of New York counties, which is being closely watched by courts in other jurisdictions around the country, has refused to toss claims against drug distributors. The ruling, by Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Jerry Garguilo, to deny motions to dismiss by pharmaceutical drug distributors named as defendants in the case comes one month after he refused to dismiss suits against a group of drug manufacturers. The rulings were the “first of their kind” in the United States, said plaintiffs attorney Paul Napoli. He said the decisions place the New York litigation, brought on behalf of some 50 counties, at the head of the pack compared with the federal multidistrict litigation that's playing out in Ohio and cases proceeding in courts in Pennsylvania, Tennessee and West Virginia. “This is another major victory for New York in both this litigation and in its battle against the opioid epidemic,” Napoli said in a written statement. “The distributor defendants were entrusted to act as intermediaries between manufacturers and pharmacies, but instead they were integral to the scheme to expand the market for prescription opioids.” Garguilo said that counties may proceed with claims that a group of distributors that includes McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health, Kinray and AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., violated New York's consumer fraud and false advertising laws. The counties are also moving forward with public nuisance, negligence, unjust enrichment and fraud claims against the defendants. “The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, acting in concert employed assiduously crafted, multipronged marketing strategies that targeted the general public through websites, print advertisements, and educational materials and publications as part of their scheme to change the perception of the risks associated with prescription opioids and to destigmatize and normalize the long-term use of opioids for chronic nonmalignant pain,” the judge said. In June, Garguilo denied motions by Purdue Pharma, Endo Health Solutions, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Allergan, Johnson & Johnson's Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Insys Therapeutics Inc. to dismiss similar claims. A spokeswoman for McKesson declined to comment, citing pending litigation, while spokespersons for the remaining distributor defendants did not respond to requests for comment. The New York counties allege that opioid manufacturers and distributors, as well as individual physicians named in the case, worked together a scheme to promote the use of opioids to treat chronic pain by using deceptive marketing techniques on the public and the medical community, which gave rise to the opioid epidemic that is ravaging communities across the country. The distributors' role in the scheme, the counties allege, was taking part in an “unbranded marketing campaign” in which the distributors provided funding to front groups such as the American Pain Foundation and the American Academy of Pain Medicine and “key opinion leaders” who disseminated deceptive messages about the dangers and benefits of prescription opioid use. The counties also said the distributors worked as intermediaries between manufacturers and pharmacies, and were “integral” to the scheme by shipping suspicious orders and not taking steps to ensure that the counties were not being oversaturated with opioids. In effect, the New York counties say they've been stuck with the bills for prescription costs for employees that may not have been paid out had the risks of opioids like OxyContin been widely known, as well as the costs of dealing with the fallout of the epidemic, like combating criminal activity associated with the opioid trade and distributing naloxone to first responders for trying to bring overdosing opioid users back from the brink. Motions by distributors and manufacturers to dismiss the federal multidistrict litigation in Ohio district court are pending. As for the New York case, Napoli said the plaintiffs hope to bring the case to trial by spring 2019 and will suggest that he choose four counties—two upstate, two downstate—to serve as bellwethers for the full group of plaintiffs.
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 AllWalmart Accused of Misrepresenting 'Cheese' Ingredients in Great Value's Macaroni & Cheese
3 minute readSupreme Court Asked to Review Issues of Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement
8 minute readJudge Sets April Retrial Date in Sarah Palin Defamation Action Against NY Times
Trending Stories
- 1The American Lawyer Names Industry Award Winners
- 2Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
- 3Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 4Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
- 5USPTO Director Kathi Vidal Announces Resignation Ahead of Administration Change
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