Opioid suits can’t be based on nuisance law in Ohio, top state court rules in $650M win for pharmacies


Tort Law

Opioid suits can’t be based on nuisance law in Ohio, top state court rules in $650M win for pharmacies

Image from Shutterstock.

A decision by the Ohio Supreme Court on the state’s product-liability law is good news for three national pharmaceutical chains ordered to pay more than $650 million for contributing to the opioid epidemic.

The state supreme court ruled Dec. 10 that the Ohio Product Liability Act eliminated all common-law nuisance claims in connection with the sale of products, Court News Ohio reports. The state supreme court ruled after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati asked for a ruling on the impact of the state law as amended.

The 6th Circuit certified the question to the Ohio Supreme Court in an appeal of a $650.6 million judgment against CVS, Walmart and Walgreens. The lawsuit was among several bellwether cases used to test claims and defenses chosen from about 3,000 opioid suits consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Two Ohio counties had contended that the damages awarded were for abatement of the nuisance, rather than for compensatory damages. As a result, the law didn’t bar their claims, they argued.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled, however, that the type of relief requested is immaterial under the law as written. The state supreme court also rejected the counties’ claim that the nuisance suit didn’t meet the definition of a product-liability claim because there were no allegations of a product defect.

The three drug companies praised the ruling, Bloomberg Law reports. Walgreens said in a statement the decision “allows us to put this litigation behind us so we can continue focusing on the health and well-being of our patients, customers and team members in northern Ohio and across the country.”

Peter H. Weinberger represented the plaintiffs—Lake County and Trumbull County in Ohio. He told Bloomberg Law that the decision “will have a devastating impact on communities and their ability to police corporate misconduct.”

Nationwide, he said, opioid settlements with drugmakers, distributors and pharmacies total nearly $60 billion. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision “undermines the very legal basis that drove this result,” Weinberger told Bloomberg Law.

The Ohio Supreme Court is the second top state court to rule that public-nuisance laws cannot be used in opioid suits.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held in November 2021 that Johnson & Johnson’s opioid marketing did not create a public nuisance because it concerned the sale of a lawful product. The decision overturned a $465 million verdict.





Source link

Jones Day has hired nearly 100 SCOTUS clerks in a dozen years; how many are in this year’s class?


Careers

Jones Day has hired nearly 100 SCOTUS clerks in a dozen years; how many are in this year’s class?

Jones Day has hired 10 former U.S. Supreme Court law clerks from the October 2023 term. (Photo from Jones Day’s Dec. 10 press release)

Jones Day has hired 10 former U.S. Supreme Court law clerks from the October 2023 term, adding to an “already-deep bench of talent,” according to Noel Francisco, the partner in charge of the law firm’s Washington, D.C., office and a former U.S. solicitor general.

Jones Day has recruited 96 Supreme Court clerks since the October 2011 term, according to a Dec. 10 press release.

Each of the high court’s conservative justices had employed at least one of Jones Day’s new associates. Justice Brett Kavanaugh employed three of them, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Samuel Alito each employed two.

Only about three dozen law clerks work for Supreme Court justices each term, “which means these lawyers—and their unparalleled knowledge of the court—are in incredibly high demand,” the Washington Post reported in January.

Jones Day is “the leader in the race to recruit and hire as many clerks as possible,” the article reported.

What kind of a signing bonus can the former Supreme Court clerks expect? A Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher spokesperson told the Washington Post in January that bonuses have reached a new high of $500,000.

A Jones Day spokesperson did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal request for information on its signing bonuses.

Jones Day hired eight former Supreme Court clerks last year and seven in 2022, the National Law Journal reported in its story on the new associates.





Source link

Top Montana court allows gender-affirming care for trans minors during litigation, citing privacy protections


Privacy Law

Top Montana court allows gender-affirming care for trans minors during litigation, citing privacy protections

The Montana Supreme Court has cited state constitutional privacy protections when it upheld a judge’s decision to block a law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors. (Image from Shutterstock)

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday cited state constitutional privacy protections when it upheld a judge’s decision to block a law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

The state supreme court upheld a state judge’s determination that a privacy challenge to the 2023 law blocking the care was likely to succeed on the merits, and that challengers were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.

The Montana Supreme Court’s Dec. 11 decision leaves in place a preliminary injunction that blocks the ban on gender-affirming care pending a trial in the case.

The state supreme court cited the Montana Constitution, which provides: “The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.”

The law should be evaluated using strict scrutiny, the state supreme court said.

“The statute at issue here prevents a wide range of treatment even when such treatment is determined, in the judgment of a medical professional working with their patients, to be in the patients’ best interest and given with informed consent,” the Montana Supreme Court said. “The district court reasonably concluded that the balance of the equities tips toward preliminary relief pending full consideration of the merits.”

Two concurring justices said the state supreme court also should have addressed the plaintiffs’ claim that the law violates the state constitution’s equal protection clause.

“Gender-affirming care is currently being litigated on equal protection grounds around the country, and the United States Supreme Court is poised to take up the issue this term,” the concurrence said. “These cases are instructive in certain ways, but they cannot answer what this court is being asked: how sex/gender discrimination and suspect class discrimination should be handled under the unique equal protection provision of the Montana Constitution.”

A partial dissenter would have allowed the law’s ban on Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care to take effect.

Hat tip to the American Civil Liberties Union, which issued a Dec. 11 press release.

How Appealing linked to coverage by the Flathead Beacon and Courthouse News Service.





Source link

California judge admonished for doing this after telling newbie attorney to stop shaking her head


Judiciary

California judge admonished for doing this after telling newbie attorney to stop shaking her head

Judge Thomas R. Adams has been a judge of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court in California (pictured above) since 1983. His current term began in 2021. (Photo from Shutterstock)

A California judge has received a public admonishment partly for flinging court papers at a newbie defense lawyer because he thought that she was shaking her head at him.

Judge Thomas R. Adams of Santa Barbara County, California, acted in November 2023 after expressing impatience with Deputy Public Defender Reem Yassin, according to the Dec. 10 public admonishment. Yassin had been admitted to law practice for only three months at the time.

Law360 has coverage.

Yassin had filed a request for pretrial diversion for her client and noticed it for hearing during a continued arraignment. During the hearing, the prosecution objected to the diversion request on several grounds, including that the arraignment department was not the proper forum.

The California Commission on Judicial Performance’s public admonishment says this exchange followed:

“Let me interrupt,” Adams said. “This is not the time that I’m supposed to play referee between public defender and district attorney. OK? I just don’t have the time or the patience to do that. OK? If you want to have a fistfight with the DA, take it outside.”

Adams continued after Yassin tried to interject.

“I have a whole bunch of people sitting here waiting for their cases to be called. I just don’t need this, OK? I just don’t need it. This is not the first time it’s happened. So, we’re all on—we’re all on notification.”

“And I’m sorry,” he said as he threw off his glasses. “Don’t shake your head at me like, ‘Oh, don’t give me this crap,’ OK?”

Yassin protested that she wasn’t shaking her head at the judge.

“No, you are,” he said as he pointed at Yassin. “I’ll come back later. You guys can have a seat right there, OK? I just don’t need this from you today, OK? Are we on the same page? You’re asking the court to do you a big favor.”

At that point, he flung the moving papers toward Yassin. They landed in front of the podium where she was standing.

The defendant then commented, “That was crazy.”

Yassin was so distressed by the incident that her superiors sent her home and temporarily reassigned her cases to other attorneys. She didn’t return to court until the following week.

Adams later sent Yassin an apology letter acknowledging that his conduct was inappropriate.

The public admonishment also said Adams made misleading statements to the California Commission on Judicial Performance in a previous ethics investigation when he said he intended to retire.

“Judge Adams hopes that the commission will conclude that in light of nearly half of a century’s career on the bench and Judge Adams’ retirement, his missteps do not warrant the imposition of discipline,” he said in his response to the preliminary investigation letter in the previous ethics case.

Adams did not retire. He was privately admonished in June 2023 in that case, which cited an ex parte conversation with the jury foreperson, a failure to cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business, and conduct that could reasonably be interpreted as biased based on sex and gender.

The bias incident stemmed from a defendant’s remark that a female attorney was “so beautiful.”

“I’ll stipulate to that,” Adams replied.

Adams received a previous private admonishment in 1993 for ordering a pro se family law litigant to be taken into custody for two days without a contempt hearing.

Adams respects the public admonishment decision by the California Commission on Judicial Performance, his representatives told Law360 in a statement.

Throughout his 50-year judicial career, the statement said, Adams endeavored to be “respectful, courteous and patient” to everyone in his courtroom, the statement said.

“The incident involving the deputy public defender was an isolated occurrence for which he immediately sought to make amends by sending her a private letter of apology,” the statement said. “Judge Adams did not intend to mislead the commission regarding his plans to remain on the bench but acknowledges that he should have communicated with the commission more clearly his intention to continue his judicial service.”





Source link

Federal judge will no longer tolerate lawyers’ barbed briefs and ‘expletive-laden phone calls’


Trials & Litigation

Federal judge will no longer tolerate lawyers’ barbed briefs and ‘expletive-laden phone calls’

A federal judge in Seattle is fed up with “hyperbole and bluster” in a lawsuit alleging that State Farm failed to pay full policy benefits to homeowners after a house fire. (Photo from Shutterstock)

A federal judge in Seattle is fed up with “hyperbole and bluster” in a lawsuit alleging that State Farm failed to pay full policy benefits to homeowners after a house fire.

Lawyers “traded barbs in their briefs and during oral argument” about lack of professionalism and motives, offering competing accounts about who is to blame for a breakdown in communications, said U.S. District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the Western District of Washington in a Dec. 4. order. Whitehead was appointed by President Joe Biden.

Law360 has the story.

No matter which story is to be believed, the lawyers’ actions fell short of the required collegiality standard, Whitehead said.

“Expletive-laden phone calls, hang-ups, backing out of prior agreements without explanation, and misleading emails purporting to ‘memorialize’ phone calls demean the integrity of the legal process and show disrespect to all concerned, including the court in having to resolve petty disputes,” Whitehead said in his order.

“Let it be clear: The court will not tolerate such conduct moving forward.”

Whitehead scolded the lawyers before ruling on the plaintiffs’ requests for financial information from State Farm. The plaintiffs hope to learn whether the insurer incentivized claim handlers to place their personal financial gain over the interests of policyholders.

“Setting aside the parties’ hyperbole and bluster,” the communications submitted into evidence show that the parties are at an impasse, Whitehead said. The judge allowed discovery on the incentives program but narrowed the documents that should be produced.

Law360 listed the lawyers for the plaintiffs as Heather N. Derenski of Cedar View Law and Karl E. Malling. The lawyer for State Farm is James D. Hicks of Sinars Slowikowski Tomaska.

None of the lawyers immediately responded to ABA Journal emails seeking comment. Nor did they respond to messages left in voicemails or with law firm personnel.





Source link

Prosecutor who sent nude photos to federal judge ‘felt trapped,’ thought she had no choice, cited letter says


Judiciary

Prosecutor who sent nude photos to federal judge ‘felt trapped,’ thought she had no choice, cited letter says

An assistant U.S. attorney in Alaska has said she felt “completely powerless” when a then-judge asked for nude photos around the same time that he allegedly texted her about holding grudges and his power to help her win a nomination to the federal bench. (Image from Shutterstock)

An assistant U.S. attorney in Alaska said she felt “completely powerless” when then-U.S. District Judge Joshua M. Kindred of the District of Alaska asked for nude photos around the same time that he allegedly texted her about holding grudges and his power to help her win a nomination to the federal bench, according to documents unsealed Monday.

The assistant U.S. attorney’s allegations were revealed after Senior U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernández of the District of Oregon unsealed his September order granting a new trial to a cyberstalking defendant. Kindred presided in the case, and the assistant U.S. attorney described as “AUSA 1” had some prosecution involvement.

“The specific, unusual and highly troubling facts of Judge Kindred’s interactions and relationship with AUSA 1 give rise to at least the appearance of impropriety,” Hernández wrote when he granted the new trial.

Hernández also unsealed a defense brief that cited the prosecutor’s August letter detailing her relationship with Kindred. The brief does not indicate the recipient of the letter but says it appears to be in response to Kindred’s July resignation and the filing of motions by the defense counsel.

Judge Joshua_Kindred Wikimedia Commons_200px
Then-U.S. District Judge Joshua M. Kindred of the District of Alaska. (Photo by Snickers2686, PD US Courts, via Wikimedia Commons)

Reuters and Law360 have coverage, while the Volokh Conspiracy published part of the opinion.

Kindred abruptly resigned from the federal bench in July after he was referred to the U.S. Judicial Conference for possible impeachment. The judicial council of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco had requested the resignation after concluding that Kindred created a hostile work environment for his law clerks and had a “sexualized relationship” with one of them.

The May judicial council report also mentioned the federal prosecutor who sent nude photos to the judge.

A defense motion for a new trial in the cyberstalking case included information said to have been in the letter from “AUSA 1.” The redacted letter was disclosed to the defense by a federal prosecutor tapped to review Kindred’s cases and whether recusal might have been required.

Before she sent the photos, “AUSA 1” said, Kindred sent texts saying he found her attractive, and he had recommended her for a federal judgeship. Shortly before that, Kindred allegedly texted “AUSA 1” about anger issues and holding grudges.

Her letter said she felt pressured to send the photos, according to the defense motion.

“I felt trapped and believed I had no choice,” she wrote. She thought that she “had no other option because he has the power to ruin not only my career but my personal life, as well.”

The prosecutor made the accusations after saying in an earlier letter that her relationship with Kindred was purely professional, according to Hernández’s order.

The cyberstalking defendant was tried and convicted a second time last month, according to a Dec. 6 press release.





Source link