Appeals court allows LA judge to remain on opioid litigation

An appeals court won't force a Los Angeles County judge to disqualify himself from coordinated opioid cases.

The four-sentence order deemed irrelevant the defense's allegations of forum shopping against plaintiffs' counsel at Robins Kaplan LLP, describing the disqualification of Judge William F. Highberger as a "narrow legal issue." The order offers no explanation for denying the bid to overturn Highberger's rejection of a 170.6 motion against him.

Robins Kaplan partner Michael A. Geibelson said Tuesday he couldn't yet say if his team would petition the state Supreme Court for review. City of El Monte et al. v. Superior Court Los Angeles County et al., B302241 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. Dec. 3, 2019).

The decision from Justices Luis A. Lavin, Anne H. Egerton and Halim Dhanidina lifts a stay in a case that's emerging as a prime battleground in California's fight for a piece of potentially billion-dollar resolutions to a longstanding public health crisis.

Robins Kaplan attorneys are fighting to stay out of the multi-district litigation in Ohio, and they're using California's 170.6 to steer litigation away from judges they believe are biased to their cause. They've twice disqualified Orange County Judge Peter J. Wilson, once in a case that's a version of claims abandoned after they were sent to the multi-district litigation court last summer.

The other disqualification prevented Wilson from deciding the coordination petition that ultimately sent two Robins Kaplan actions and a state attorney general action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. That disqualification proved fatal to Robins Kaplan's disqualification motion against Highberger, who was assigned the coordinated action sent to Los Angeles County by Wilson's replacement, Orange County Superior Court Judge William D. Claster.

Highberger pointed to Wilson's disqualification when he rejected the motion against him, concluding counsel is allowed one disqualification in a coordinated proceeding.

Robins Kaplan partner Glenn A. Danas said in his writ petition that the law allows for one challenge per coordination proceeding within a coordinated case. The opioid proceeding started anew, he argued, once Claster decided the coordination motion and the case was assigned to Highberger.

Michael G. Yoder, Amy J. Laurendeau, Charles C. Lifland and Sabrina H. Strong of O'Melveny & Myers LLP filed an opposition on behalf of Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.

The coordinated action includes Robins Kaplan's actions on behalf of Kern County and the City of El Monte as well as the state attorney general's action against Purdue Pharma LP's founding Sackler family. The latter is stayed under the Purdue bankruptcy in New York.

Robins Kaplan has other actions, including one that includes Alameda County and nine Southern California cities as plaintiffs, that recently were removed to U.S. district court by defense attorneys. County of Alameda et al., v. Sackler et al., 19CV-02154 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 7, 2019).