NY Judge Allows Opioid Claims to Go Forward Against Sacklers
Suffolk County Supreme Court Judge Jerry Garguilo found two cities and 31 counties could move forward on their claims against the Sacklers, who are current and former directors of opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma.
June 24, 2019 at 05:14 PM
4 minute read
A New York judge has allowed a group of consolidated cases brought by several counties and cities in New York to pursue claims against the Sackler family in order to recoup millions of dollars in costs tied to the opioid crisis.
In a ruling Friday, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Jerry Garguilo found two cities and 31 counties had alleged sufficient facts to move forward against the Sacklers on their claims, which include public nuisance, negligence, fraud and New York's consumer fraud and false advertising laws.
“Here, although the court recognizes that the allegations as to certain of the Sacklers are lacking in detail, the plaintiffs have made a sufficient start to warrant discovery on the limited issue of whether any of the Sacklers is a 'primary actor,'” the judge wrote.
The ruling is the first to address whether claims over the opioid crisis could continue against the Sacklers, as current and former directors of opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma, according to Paul Napoli, co-lead plaintiffs counsel in the New York case.
“The judge has given the right to do jurisdictional discovery, which will be brought, and which will begin to tell the story of each of these individual Sacklers and their relationship to the conduct that's the underlying basis not only to our case but to the attorney general cases,” said Napoli, of New York's Napoli Shkolnik. “So, we'll have that first bite of the apple.”
In 2018, Garguilo refused to dismiss the claims against several opioid companies, including distributors and manufacturers like Purdue.
The counties later added the Sacklers as individual defendants, as have attorneys general in several states, like Connecticut and New York, whose case is before the same judge. The Sacklers include former Purdue chairman and president Richard Sackler and seven other members of the Sackler family.
Neither Mary Jo White of Debevoise & Plimpton nor David Bernick, of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, who both represent Sackler family members, responded to requests for comment.
According to Friday's ruling, the Sacklers had argued that they were not vicariously liable for the acts of Purdue's board of directors and that the cities and counties had failed to allege that any of them participated in making the alleged misstatements in the complaint. But Garguilo found that, under New York law, a director may be held individually liable for a company's tort action if he or she “directed, controlled, approved or ratified” the decision that lead to the injuries. And the complaint alleged the Sacklers, as “controlling directors” of Purdue, oversaw the company's marketing and targeting of doctors, among other things.
As to public nuisance, he wrote, “the Sacklers have failed to establish why public health is not a right common to the general public.” A public nuisance claim, he wrote, “may be an appropriate tool to address the consequential harm from the defendants' concerted efforts to market and promote their products for sale and distribution, particularly as such efforts are alleged to have created or contributed to a crisis of epidemic proportions.”
He upheld all the other claims, including fraud and consumer fraud allegations under New York law, while refusing to dismiss them on statutes of limitations grounds.
|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 AllDecision of the Day: Split Circuit Panel Bars Enforcement of Ivory Law's 'Display Restriction' on Antique Group Members
Decision of the Day: Judge Precludes Ballistics Expert's Opinion on Scene for 2016 Fatal Police Shooting
Decision of the Day: Contingency Fee to Counsel Result of Successful Advocacy, Not Windfall
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
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