Texans for Lawsuit Reform

Through political action, legal, academic and market research, and grassroots initiatives, TLR fights for common-sense reforms that keep Texas open for business.

  • About TLR
    • Our Mission
    • Our Team
    • Timeline of Reforms
  • Videos
  • Issues
  • Resource Center
    • Special Reports
    • In the News
    • Press Releases
    • The Advocate
    • TLR Blog: For the Record
  • Get Involved
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
    • Invite a TLR Speaker
  • Donate
  • Stay Informed
In the News

State AGs pose big obstacle for novel opioids negotiating class proposal

Reuters, June 26, 2019

By Alison Frankel

Bold innovations often require a bit of tinkering. So it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that the incredibly creative idea of certifying a class of all of the 24,500 local governments in the country to negotiate a global settlement with opioid defendants is going to take a little more time to design.

But after reading two letters in which more than two dozen state attorneys general outline their problems with the idea of cities and counties from across the country banding together to negotiate an opioids deal, I’m not sure that mere tinkering is all that’s required – especially if the goal of the lawyers who proposed the innovative negotiation class is to push opioid defendants into a global settlement.

You’ve probably heard about the proposal by plaintiffs’ lawyers representing more than 1,800 city and county governments suing pharmaceutical companies, drug wholesalers and drugstore chains for sparking an epidemic of drug abuse. U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of Cleveland, who is overseeing the nationwide opioids MDL, has been pushing for a global settlement since practically the day he was assigned the case. Defendants have balked. For one thing, they deny that they illegally marketed or sold opioid products, which are tightly regulated by the federal government, and contend that illegal heroin and fentanyl, and not their prescription pharmaceuticals, are to blame for the rash of drug overdoses. For another, defendants are worried about the practical obstacles to global peace. Sure, nearly 2,000 cities and counties are in the MDL, but they’re only a fraction of the local governments in the country. Any settlement with plaintiffs in the consolidated litigation would just attract more claims.

Lead plaintiffs’ lawyers in the MDL came up with a solution, presented in a June 17 filing before Judge Polster. They asked the judge to certify a class of all of the cities, counties and other local governments in the country – but only for the purpose of negotiating global settlements with defendants in the opioids litigation. All of the local governments would have a say in whether to accept settlement proposals, based on factors including their population and incidence of opioid abuse. In a blog post explaining the novel idea, co-lead counsel Joseph Rice of Motley Rice argued that the negotiating class would maximize the collective leverage of city and county governments – but would also give defendants an opportunity to settle claims en masse, shutting down their exposure to opioid claims.

Judge Polster held a hearing Tuesday on the motion to certify the negotiating class. As my colleague Nate Raymond reported, the judge himself seemed open to the idea, noting, “We need a novel solution to a novel problem.”

Plaintiffs’ lawyers nevertheless asked the judge to delay consideration of their proposal so they can rework pieces of it. Plaintiffs executive committee member Paul Geller of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd told Judge Polster that he and the other lawyers leading the case believe they can make some adjustments to address concerns raised by some of the defendants and by state AGs.

Can they? And even if MDL plaintiffs manage to get a negotiation class certified, will defendants actually come to the table?

The state AGs seem to me – and to law professor Adam Zimmerman of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, whom I consulted on this question – to be a real problem for plaintiffs in the MDL. Remember, almost every state has filed a suit attempting to hold at least one opioid defendant liable for spurring drug abuse. No state AG’s case is currently being litigated in the federal court MDL before Judge Polster. So while cities and counties pursue their claims in federal court, the states that contain those cities and counties are chasing overlapping claims in their home courts. To offer one concrete example: the county government of Broward, Florida, is a plaintiff in the multidistrict litigation in Cleveland (and, in fact, is proposed to serve as a class representative in talks with opioid defendants if the judge certifies a negotiating class); Florida’s state AG, Ashley Moody, is meanwhile litigating a separate suit against many of the same defendants in state court in Pasco County.

Who gets to decide how much opioid defendants must pay to settle these overlapping claims by state and local government officials – and how that money is allocated within the state? The proposed MDL negotiating class offers allocation formulas and a suggestion for a board to resolve disputes between state and local governments about distributing recoveries. But Moody and 23 other state AGs, along with the AGs of Guam and Washington, D.C., argued in a June 24 letter to Judge Polster that these proposals threaten state sovereignty over their litigation in state court.

The AGs also contend that the proposed negotiating class creates federalism problems: By proposing a formula to allocate settlement funds among cities and counties across the country, the negotiating class would interfere with states’ rights to decide how to work with local governments within their borders. Instead of encouraging a global resolution of the opioid crisis, these AGs said, the negotiating class would impede it by driving a wedge between local governments in the MDL and state AGs litigating outside of it.

In a separate letter, 26 state AGs and the AG of Washington, D.C., argued that the proposed negotiation class may not even be certifiable under the federal rules governing class actions because of differences among state consumer laws and statutes dictating the relationship between state and local governments. (There’s considerable overlap between the state AGs who signed the two letters, but several states signed only one or the other, not both.) The second AGs’ letter also argues that the proposed negotiation class would interfere with states’ sovereign rights by attempting “to impose obligations on the Attorneys General in how they interact with the political subdivisions within their respective states.”

It’s important to keep in mind, as Loyola professor Zimmerman pointed out to me, that many states, including high-profile opioid litigants like Massachusetts and New York, signed neither letter. It’s also worth remembering that local governments (and the private lawyers they hired) were pushing litigation against opioid defendants before most state AGs decided to sue.

But the AGs who have signaled opposition to the negotiation class “are a really significant group that has to be reckoned with,” said Zimmerman. For defendants, the whole point of working with a class in the MDL would be to achieve a global resolution of claims, Zimmerman said, but that’s impossible if the state AGs won’t participate.

Obviously, the AGs can’t be bound to a settlement negotiated in a federal court that does not have jurisdiction over their claims. The question, however, is whether they work alongside or against the local governments litigating in federal court. It may turn out, Zimmerman said, participation in the MDL class will depend on whether state laws allow cities and counties to litigate independently. Local governments in states that do not grant them independent rights may have to opt out of the class.

“It may be that defendants can’t achieve global peace – but they can achieve some peace,” he said.

Co-lead MDL counsel Rice told me there’s no doubt that some defendants won’t settle with the MDL plaintiffs unless state AGs also settle. Others, he said, want to cut out the local governments in the MDL and reach deals with state AGs that attempt to resolve claims by MDL plaintiffs as well. One of the AGs’ letters to Polster hints obliquely at an AG-centered deal in a reference to AGs meeting with Judge Polster on June 19 “concerning their ongoing efforts to negotiate prompt settlements of pending litigation.”

The negotiation class is a shrewd play by plaintiffs’ lawyers to magnify their leverage and prevent the AGs and defendants from attempting to freeze them out of a role in global settlement negotiations. Judge Polster appears to be willing to give it a try. But its ultimate effectiveness will depend on persuading the AGs to buy in.

Follow us on Facebook

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

Texans for Lawsuit Reform

6 hours ago

Texans for Lawsuit Reform

When 30-year-old Quinnton Allen violated his parole for possession of a firearm, a Houston judge not only allowed him to stay on parole but granted him a PR bond for a felony. Unfortunately, the decision to release him on bond may have cost a man’s life. Read and share: bit.ly/3OvDU5z ... See MoreSee Less

Link thumbnail

29-year-old man murdered after judge grants felony PR bond to armed robber recently paroled from prison

bit.ly

HOUSTON – “I’ve never had any of these defendants we’ve profiled on Breaking Bond on parole and on a felony PR bond charged with murder,” said Andy Kahan with Crime Stoppers. “This is a fi...
View on Facebook
·Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 0
  • Shares: 1
  • Comments: 3

Comment on Facebook

That judge should be held accountable

His family should get a good lawyer & sue the city & the judge…

The judge should be held as an accomplice to the murder before the fact and sued in civil court for his contribution to the death of the citizen.

Texans for Lawsuit Reform

1 day ago

Texans for Lawsuit Reform

Texas ports are thriving today, but in the early 2000s, abusive personal injury lawsuits threatened to shut them down. As the Port of Houston begins a long-awaited expansion, read more about the common-sense lawsuit reform in 2007 that saved our state’s shipping industry in this week’s TLR blog, For the Record: bit.ly/3aeTy6n ... See MoreSee Less

Learn More

Play
View on Facebook
·Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 4
  • Shares: 2
  • Comments: 0

Comment on Facebook

Texans for Lawsuit Reform

2 days ago

Texans for Lawsuit Reform

Wishing everyone a very happy Fourth of July! ... See MoreSee Less

Wishing everyone a very happy Fourth of July!
View on Facebook
·Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 5
  • Shares: 0
  • Comments: 1

Comment on Facebook

Happy Independence Day America Today we celebrate our Republic 🇺🇸


Follow us on Twitter

lawsuitreform avatarTLR@lawsuitreform·
6h 1544713193846603777

When 30-year-old Quinnton Allen violated his parole for possession of a firearm, a Houston judge not only allowed him to stay on parole but granted him a PR bond for a felony. The decision to release him on bond may have cost a man’s life. Read & RT:

29-year-old man murdered after judge grants felony PR bond to armed robber recently paroled from prison

HOUSTON – “I’ve never had any of these defendants we’ve profiled on Breaking Bond on parole and on a felony PR bond charged with m...

bit.ly

Reply on Twitter 1544713193846603777Retweet on Twitter 1544713193846603777Like on Twitter 1544713193846603777Twitter 1544713193846603777
lawsuitreform avatarTLR@lawsuitreform·
24h 1544441042120089600

Sign up for the TLR Weekly News Roundup to receive a daily digest of headlines & news stories about #lawsuitreform from Texas & around the country!

Sign up for the TLR Weekly News Roundup!

Please use the form below to receive a daily digest of TLR Clips - headlines and news stories about lawsuit reform from Texas and around the country.

bit.ly

Reply on Twitter 1544441042120089600Retweet on Twitter 1544441042120089600Like on Twitter 15444410421200896001Twitter 1544441042120089600
lawsuitreform avatarTLR@lawsuitreform·
5 Jul 1544407069297614851

Texas ports are thriving, but in the early 2000s, abusive lawsuits threatened to shut them down. Read more about the common-sense reform that saved our state’s shipping industry in this week’s TLR blog, For the Record: https://bit.ly/3aeTy6n

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: Texas ports are thriving, but
Reply on Twitter 1544407069297614851Retweet on Twitter 15444070692976148512Like on Twitter 1544407069297614851Twitter 1544407069297614851

Texans for Lawsuit Reform
1701 Brun Street
Houston, Texas 77019

Ph. 713-963-9363
  • About TLR
  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Timeline of Reforms
  • Videos
  • Issues
  • Resource Center
  • For the Record
  • Special Reports
  • In the News
  • Press Releases
  • Invite a TLR Speaker
  • Get Involved
  • Invite a TLR Speaker
  • Donate
  • Stay Informed
  • Contact TLR

Copyright © 2022 · Texans for Lawsuit Reform. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2022 · Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy