Opioid cases in California should be coordinated, lawyer says

A major class action firm wants a state lawsuit against opioid manufacturers in Orange County coordinated with nine lawsuits filed on behalf of California counties and cities, setting up a potential battle between a longstanding, four-jurisdiction team and a crop of municipalities eager for a piece of an expected multi-million-dollar settlement.

The move from Robins Kaplan LLP is the latest twist in a case that had been scheduled for trial in June but stalled amid a bifurcation debate as other cases gain traction nationally, including multi-district litigation in Ohio and a state lawsuit in Oklahoma.

Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins' lead national trial chair, said Tuesday he believes the new cases should proceed separately from the Ohio multi-district litigation, and that coordination with the state action in Orange County is judicially economic.

"While it's true that the Orange County cases have been on file for some time, the trial date has been vacated and those cases aren't so far along in my view that they shouldn't be coordinated with our cases," Silberfeld said in an email. "I don't know what counsel in the OC cases will do, but I hope they support coordination with our cases."

Mark P. Robinson Jr., of Robinson Calcagnie Inc., could not be reached for comment on Tuesday. He's leading the plaintiffs' litigation, which is a collective action on behalf of the state of California, initiated by Orange and Santa Clara counties in 2014. Los Angeles County and the city of Oakland joined last June.

Last month, Silberfeld's team sued opioid distributors and manufacturers, including Purdue Pharma L.P., shortly after Purdue settled its share of the Oklahoma lawsuit on March 25 for $270 million. They represent nine jurisdictions in California, including Alameda County, Kern County and the cities of El Monte, Fullerton, Irvine, San Clemente, Westminster, Santa Ana and Costa Mesa.

While the Alameda, Kern and El Monte actions are filed in their respective counties, the lawsuits on behalf of the six Orange County cities are in San Francisco County Superior Court. County of Alameda et al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., R919012661 (Alameda Co. Super. Ct., filed March 28, 2019).

Silberfeld also filed a petition for coordination and a motion to stay city and county opioid cases with the state Judicial Council, then filed a notice in the state action in Orange County Superior Court on Friday.

He said the timing of the lawsuits is unrelated to Purdue's settlement with Oklahoma.

"We simply believe that proceeding at the state level is the best course of action for our clients," Silberfeld said.

While Purdue Pharma settled, other defendants such as Johnson & Johnson and Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd. remain in the Oklahoma case, which is scheduled for a bench trial May 28 at the Cleveland County Courthouse in Norman.

Meanwhile, the Ohio multi-district litigation is scheduled for trial in October, but attorneys are barred from publicly discussing settlement negotiations. U.S. District Judge Dan A. Polster of Cleveland has set aside four dates in June and July for settlement talks.

In Orange County, Superior Court Judge Peter J. Wilson still is considering a plaintiffs' request to bifurcate the liability and remedies portion of the case, which seeks civil remedies and a statewide injunction under three claims: false advertising, public nuisance and unfair competition.

Unlike other cases, it does not seek damages and targets only manufacturers. The case is engulfed with discovery battles, including a recent defense request for the state to be prohibited from presenting possibly key evidence as a sanction for noncompliance.

O'Melveny & Myers LLP attorneys filed the motion April 8 on behalf of Janssen Pharmaceuticals and its parent Johnson & Johnson. The state filed its opposition on April 12. People v. Purdue Pharma et al. (O.C. Super. Ct., filed May 21, 2014).

More recent claims are targeting distributers as well as the family that founded Purdue Pharma.

The Robins Kaplan actions seek damages and targets distributers, manufacturers and the Purdue founding family. The claims include public nuisance, fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, false advertising, negligent failure to warn, and fraudulent transfer civil conspiracy.