Opioid MDL Judge Considers Request to Certify Unprecedented Nationwide Class Of Government Entities To Negotiate Settlement

20 August 2019 Consumer Class Defense Counsel Blog
Authors: Jonathan W. Garlough

The federal district judge overseeing a nationwide multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) matter comprised of nearly 2,000 individual lawsuits brought against opioid manufacturers and distributors is considering a proposal by local government plaintiffs to certify a nationwide “Negotiation Class” for the purpose of reaching a potential settlement of the claims at issue.  See In re National Prescription Opiate Lit., No. 1:17-md-02804 (N.D. Ohio).  On August 6, 2019, Judge Aaron Polster heard argument on the request by plaintiffs seeking certification of a voluntary opt-in class—comprised of 51 cities, counties and municipalities—who seek the certification of a nationwide Negotiation Class, comprised of the following:

[A]ll counties, parishes, and boroughs (collectively, “counties”); and all incorporated places, including without limitation cities, towns, villages, townships, and municipalities, as defined by the United States Census Bureau (collectively “cities”) as listed on the Opioids Negotiation Class website. . . .

The plaintiffs represent that the purpose of the Negotiation Class is to provide and maintain an identified and durable body of cities and counties to negotiate the parameters of a settlement for the plaintiffs.  To that end, Plaintiffs have proposed that, if certified, the Negotiation Class would be unable to enter into a binding settlement unless each of the following constituencies approve of the proposed settlement:

  • 75% of the total number of cities and counties that filed suit as of June 14, 2019;
  • 75% of the total number of cities and counties that did not file suit as of June 14, 2019;
  • Counties and cities representing 75% of the total voting populations of all cities and counties (based on 2010 Census data) that filed suit as of June 14, 2019;
  • Counties and cities representing 75% of the total voting populations of all cities and counties (based on 2010 Census data) that did not file suit as of June 14, 2019.

Each county or city (both those that have filed suit and those without any ongoing litigation against the defendants) would cast its vote to approve or disapprove a proposed settlement through a website set up by plaintiffs’ counsel. The vote would then bind the residents of the voting government entity. As with any other class action under Rule 23(b)(3), any local government plaintiff could opt out of the class and refuse to participate in the settlement.

While drug manufacturers have declined to take a position on the local government plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, drug distributors have opposed plaintiffs’ motion.  These defendants argue that Rule 23 does not authorize certification of a “negotiation class.”  Pointing out that the plaintiffs’ request is wholly novel and has never been approved by a prior federal court, the distributor defendants argue that Rule 23(e) permits certification “for purposes of settlement” only if there is a duly negotiated settlement, and not for the purpose of negotiating a settlement in the first instance. The distributor defendants have also opposed the proposed negotiation class on the basis that the plaintiffs do not seek certification for any specific case or cases, but rather for “all cases” within the MDL—what the distributor defendants term a “free-floating ‘MDL class.’”  Many state attorney generals—a number of whom are bringing their own suits in their respective state courts—have also opposed the requested Negotiation Class, saying the proposal undermines finding a collaborative and effective response to the opioid crisis.

Given the novelty of a Negotiation Class, plaintiffs’ motion raises a series of questions and issues that Judge Polster and the parties will need to unpack and obstacles to reaching a global settlement (such as, for example, why restrict the relevant population count to the “total voting population,” rather than total population?).  Nevertheless, it is clear that the Court is giving serious consideration to certifying a class for purposes of settlement.  On August 19, 2019, Judge Polster also issued an order appointing two attorneys “interim class counsel.” The Court’s August 19 Order also provides explicitly that the appointed interim class counsel are to “facilitate negotiations between counties/cities and Defendants, not to interfere with any of the States’ settlement discussions or intrude in allocation discussion between a State and its own counties and cities.”

Class action practitioners will await a ruling, which could break new ground relating to the flexibility and discretion district courts have in managing complex multidistrict litigation.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
20 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
The Purpose of a Corporation
November 2019
Legal News: Business Law
Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
Data Processing Patent Eligibility: Federal Circuit Finds Claims Eligible in KPN v. Gemalto
19 November 2019
IP Litigation Current
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
12 December 2019
Boston, MA