Opioid suit lawyers want cases moved into single federal court

As more governments across the nation sue dozens of drug companies to claw back money spent battling opioid addiction, one lawyer has moved to transfer all the cases into a single federal court.

By Amanda Bronstad | October 02, 2017 at 06:15 AM

As more governments across the nation sue dozens of drug companies to claw back money spent battling opioid addiction, one lawyer has moved to transfer all the cases into a single federal court.

James Peterson of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler in Charleston, West Virginia, moved on Sept. 25 to coordinate at least 66 cases brought by cities, counties and even two states — New Hampshire and West Virginia — into multidistrict litigation. Peterson represents 46 cities, counties and other government agencies with opioid suits.

Peterson favors Ohio or Illinois as venues for the proposed MDL.

Recommended For You

“While the effects are felt in hard-hit local communities, evidence and facts proving how this happened and who to blame are in significant part uniform,” he wrote in his motion. “Consolidation in a multidistrict litigation proceeding is necessary to prevent inconsistent rulings, including on Daubert motions, and to allow efficient and coordinated adjudication of the burgeoning number of cases.”

Peterson did not return a call for comment.

At least half a dozen states have sued opioid manufacturers and distributors contending that the drug companies failed to disclose the prescription medications’ addictive nature and have created a public health problem. Many states, like New Jersey, are considering filing suits, and a coalition of 41 state attorneys general has widened its investigation of several opioid manufacturers.

Many more cities and counties have brought cases, particularly in the past few months. Cities cited in Peterson’s motion include Cincinnati; Birmingham, Alabama; Stockton, California; Tacoma, Washington; and Huntington, West Virginia. Governments in Illinois, Kentucky and Tennessee also were cited in the motion.

Many of the government plaintiffs have retained outside counsel, like Motley Rice and New York’s Simmons Hanly Conroy, to bring the lawsuits. In some cases, like New Hampshire’s, the drug companies have unsuccessfully challenged those contingency fee arrangements.

The suits also name pharmacies and doctors as defendants.

Peterson’s motion would only apply to those cases in federal court, not state courts. Many of the cases cited in the motion were recently removed to federal court.

“My cases in NY have no chance of ending up in the MDL because there is no federal diversity or subject matter jurisdiction,” wrote Paul Hanly, a shareholder at Simmons Hanly. He is handling a case brought last month by Waterbury, Connecticut, as well as several on behalf of New York cities and counties.

He also is co-lead counsel with Paul Napoli of Napoli Shkolnik in a litigation proceeding created in July that coordinated all the cases brought by governments in New York. On Wednesday, New York Supreme Court Judge Jerry Garguilo named both Hanly and Napoli co-leads over about 16 cases brought by New York counties.

Napoli said he predicted dozens more to be filed.

“A lot of counties have decided they’re going to be involved in the litigation but are interviewing firms to determine which firms will represent them in the litigation,” he said.

Avoiding the MDL gives plaintiffs lawyers a chance to pursue the cases with different evidentiary standards and New York juries. And it keeps the cases local, he said. “Our county constituents are going to make the determination of how this affected their community, and a local judge is going to make that determination, as opposed to a federal judge in some other part of the country.”

He said being in an MDL might not be a bad thing, depending on the judge. “But seeking an MDL is always a huge gamble,” he wrote.

Peterson has sought transfer to U.S. District Chief Judge Edmund Sargus of the Southern District of Ohio, who is overseeing at least 13 opioid cases, or U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle of the Southern District of Illinois.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© Touchpoint Markets, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more inforrmation visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Amanda Bronstad

Amanda Bronstad is the ALM staff reporter covering class actions and mass torts nationwide. She writes the email dispatch Law.com Class Actions: Critical Mass. She is based in Los Angeles.

By Allison Bell | June 27, 2025

Their 5.2% increase will be smaller than the hit public health insurance programs are facing.

Employers' 2026 health spending rises, public programs hit harder

By Allison Bell | June 27, 2025

The decision leaves the ACA preventive services package and the current system for choosing the services in place.

Supreme Court rules 6-3 for Affordable Care Act 'free' preventive care selection panel

By Allison Bell | June 27, 2025

In Congress, especially, Medicare and Medicaid are the squeaky wheels getting the good, and bad, grease.

Health policy shapers just aren't that into employers
2025 Broker ICHRA Survey Report link

Research Report

Sponsored by Zorro and Ambetter Health

What do brokers really think about ICHRA five years in? This report reveals how the model is evolving, what’s driving adoption, and what brokers need to succeed as demand grows.

4 Key Win-Wins of Executive Medical Plans: Unlocking Far-Reaching Organizational Value link

Infographic

Sponsored by ArmadaCare

This infographic explores a cost-effective and compliant way to solve clients’ business problems before busy season hits full stride.

Advising on Annuities: The In-Plan Advantage for Your Clients link

Article

Sponsored by TIAA

Secure income is a top priority for your clients’ retirement plans, but annuities can be complex. This guide clarifies in-plan vs. retail options, empowering you to offer superior advice, highlight cost savings, and enhance client trust.