The Clark County Commission voted to proceed with a suit against opioid manufacturers with the DA office cooperating jointly with Eglet Prince. The firm is prepared to advance up to $15 million in costs and will only take 25% of any damages awarded or settlement. [TNI]
No death penalty for Bryan Clay–just life without parole. [RJ]
Meanwhile, Scott Dozier is still fighting to be executed. [RJ]
The US Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday on whether a baker can refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. [NPR]
Do you think the opiod manufacturers are just crapping their pants over this news right now?
One question for anybody in the know: what was the ultimate resolution of the $500 million judgment in the hepatitis case? I didn't really follow it that closely, but I'm assuming it was appealed and then settled? How much of that $500 million ended up in Eglet's pocket?
I disagree. His potential has fallen. He was underestimated by the drug company in the Hep C case. It is a mistake that BIG POCKETS opioid manufacturers/drug companies will not likely make again.
It is likely they are forming their teams and strategies as you read this.
If they can defeat diversity and keep it in state court, Eglet could crush them in front of the right judge and a clark county jury. If it goes to federal court, all bets are off.
Perhaps, but these big firms can also be very obtuse and set in their ways. Also, there are very few plaintiff attorneys in the country who can put up an eight-figure war chest. It will be a hell of a fight. I think we can agree on that much.
I believe I recall that a county which has the power to sue or be sued counts as a "citizen" of its home state; therefore diversity jurisdiction would exist as to a suit brought by Clark County against a non-Nevada corporate entity. Therefore off you go to federal court.
1:46 here – unless….you add in Nevada citizen defendants, such as heinous prescribing physicians etc and then the first battle is whether they were added to defeat diversity.
If he's ready to file a complaint this week as he said, then I hope someone will post it here as soon as available. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he's thought through the diversity issues pretty thoroughly by now and will not be going off half-cocked.
Multiple firms are already doing these cases across the country. You guys act like this is groundbreaking. Levin Papantonio is spearheading this just like big tobacco. That is who drug companies are scared of.
I have a hard time believing that under any set of facts that the case would be litigated in the Eighth Judicial District Court. Most likely it gets removed to federal court (I think removal would be based upon a federal question rather than diversity jurisdiction. I would bet there is a federal statute that could be used to remove it. e.g. The Controlled Substance Act; Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970; or the like.
If for some reason, Eglet is able to keep it in state court. Clark County is not an independent entity but rather a political subdivision of the State of Nevada. Unlike other states, Nevada does not have home rule, but rather the subdivisions can only do those things that the state legislature authorizes them to do. That of course raises the interesting question of whether because the real party in interest in the State of Nevada, could the defendants successfully invoke the original jurisdiction of SCOTUS pursuant to Article III, section 2 (State as a party).
Whether or not it goes to federal court, I would say that it is a safe bet that it doesn't remain in the Eighth Judicial District Court. Our state court system is established in such a way that only the District Judge is a state employee, every other employee within the building is actually a county employee (See NRS 3.100; 3.245-3.380). With Clark County participating as a party in the action, if it would remain in state court I would anticipate it would be changed to a different venue to avoid the conflict of interest.
If they really wanted to make these companies crap their pants, should have got Paul Powell. According to the television that is exactly the reaction he can cause in defendants.
JPML Sends Opioid MDL To Northern Ohio
By Diana Novak Jones
Law360, Chicago (December 6, 2017, 9:58 PM EST) — The wave of lawsuits filed by local governments in the wake of the opioid addiction crisis will be centralized in the Northern District of Ohio, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation said Tuesday.
In an order issued less than a week after the panel heard arguments over the creation of an MDL to govern a growing group of suits filed against the manufacturers and distributors of the prescription painkillers, the panel sent the cases to U.S. District Judge Dan A. Polster.
Clark County
v.
Purdue Pharma LP; Purdue Pharma Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company Inc. dba The Purdue Frederick Company Inc.; Purdue Pharmaceuticals LP; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. nka Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. nka Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC fka Actavis PLC; Actavis Inc. fka Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma Inc. fka Watson Pharma Inc.; Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; McKesson Corporation; Masters Pharmaceutical LLC fka Masters Pharmaceutical Inc.; C & R Pharmacy dba Ken's Pharmacy fka Lam's Pharmacy Inc.; Does
12/6/2017 T17-361
Unfair business practices. Defendants falsely touted the benefits of long-term opioid use so they could make billions in profits, to the detriment of the health and well-being of the citizenry.
Robert Eglet
Guest
Anonymous
December 6, 2017 7:09 pm
One of the forthcoming opinions is the backpack recording child custody case. Anyone else following this one? The opinion should be interesting as it relates to NRS 50.285.
I agree with the posters from Monday, who everyone seemed to attack, who thought lawsuits against the manufacturers are a bad idea.
But these posters were attacked largely based on specific erroneous or questionable arguments offered as to very specific matters. So, once they really got in the weeds, and some of their info. was not accurate, they were attacked.
This often happens when one offers too much info. for their argument. But looking at the posters' points in a much more broad and general sense, those who attacked them seem to have been distracted by relatively minor matters.
For example, when the posters makes the point that the focus should remain on over-prescribing physicians and people who possess such drugs without a prescription, some responding posters believed it was particularly relevant to point out that prescribing physicians and the drug abusers are often dealt with in the criminal realm, while this new civil litigation will be an entirely different procedure or mechanism.
Ultimately, none of that really matters and does nothing to invalidate the points being made. The posters were pointing out to keep firmly focused on the physicians who abuse the process as well as those who abuse the drugs. Pursuing manufactures who are merely meeting demands based on the volume needed by prescribing physicians, is really a reach.
How do they know, and what duty do they have, and what mechanism do they have, to investigate all this and determine that less than half of what they manufacture are being validly used. And if they do cut their production in half or more, that will simply make the skilled abusers more adroit at gaming the system, and they will be the ones to get their meat hooks on the dwindling supply. Grandpa with a spinal fusion will be the one who suffers because it will be much more difficult to obtain the meds.
So, unless the manufacturers are intentionally lacing these medications to make them more addictive, I simply don't see the basis of all this. I won't go as far as the one poster, to say it is "stupid", but I really have difficulty envisioning any theory that will be ultimately successful.
By analogy,because we appear powerless to curtail gun violence by beefing up criminal sanctions, back grounds checks and the like, does that justify pursuing the manufacturer? Some say it would, but not me.
I'm definitely not a gun person, but pursuing the manufacturers, based on psychos getting hold of these weapons is simply wrong(and in most cases the psycho is not the weapon's actual owner so beefed up background checks and psych, evals. would accomplish nothing)
These manufacturers are telling doctors to prescribe pain killers for long term use, which they know is improper. The drug companies also know the consumption is to high for the demographic area. As more discovery is going there will be memos that just destroy the drug manufacturers. In every case there is always memos that show they knew exactly what was going on.
really a non-issue as the fee, like the judge's bar dues and CLE classes would be paid for by either the Court/County or the AOC budget(s). The judges do not pay for these items individually anyways so for them it's a non-issue and only a savings/loss on the government books anyways [Funds from one government budget moving into another government budget item]
The $40 fee is supposed to pay for the review of CLE requirements and the approval of courses, etc. and to pay the salaries of the employees who do these functions. The judges cause just as much of a time commitment for these people as any other attorney. There are lots of attorneys who work for the government and they are not exempt from the fee.
The question of course is whether those other government employees pay for the fee personally, or whether it is paid for by a governmental entity. At least as for the judges, it is paid for by a governmental entity rather than by them personally. A second, potential issue would be whether the CLE board is technically under the judicial or executive branches of the state, as that could potentially implicate separation of powers issues.
Guest
Anonymous
December 7, 2017 5:10 pm
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but there are now 14 law schools, including Harvard and Georgetown (and closer to home BYU and U of A), that will accept the GRE instead of the LSAT. Just what we need – making it easier for a wider pool of candidates to get into law school. Here is the WSJ article:
Fair point – maybe the GRE is just as good a measuring stick. However, here is how the article differentiates the two: "The LSAT has long bedeviled wannabe law school students. Unlike the GRE, which like college entrance exams relies on knowledge that can be memorized, the LSAT evaluates logical reasoning and reading comprehension. The GRE is used for admission to myriad graduate programs for the arts and sciences alike."
Guest
Anonymous
December 7, 2017 6:04 pm
Where would one find the goose which laid the Golden Eglet? Is it anywhere near the leprechauns' pot o' gold?
Guest
Anonymous
December 7, 2017 7:24 pm
I can sleep at night knowing Eglet is going after the pill pushers. My sarcasm penetrates. No conflicts there.
Do you think the opiod manufacturers are just crapping their pants over this news right now?
One question for anybody in the know: what was the ultimate resolution of the $500 million judgment in the hepatitis case? I didn't really follow it that closely, but I'm assuming it was appealed and then settled? How much of that $500 million ended up in Eglet's pocket?
Let's hope so. Whatever your opinion of Eglet may be, the potential for him to take them apart is high.
I disagree. His potential has fallen. He was underestimated by the drug company in the Hep C case. It is a mistake that BIG POCKETS opioid manufacturers/drug companies will not likely make again.
It is likely they are forming their teams and strategies as you read this.
If they can defeat diversity and keep it in state court, Eglet could crush them in front of the right judge and a clark county jury. If it goes to federal court, all bets are off.
Perhaps, but these big firms can also be very obtuse and set in their ways. Also, there are very few plaintiff attorneys in the country who can put up an eight-figure war chest. It will be a hell of a fight. I think we can agree on that much.
So what are the odds of keeping it in state court?
I believe I recall that a county which has the power to sue or be sued counts as a "citizen" of its home state; therefore diversity jurisdiction would exist as to a suit brought by Clark County against a non-Nevada corporate entity. Therefore off you go to federal court.
1:46 here – unless….you add in Nevada citizen defendants, such as heinous prescribing physicians etc and then the first battle is whether they were added to defeat diversity.
Sue one local doctor or pharmacy and diversity is defeated. If the game is played in Eglet's own ballpark (ie. the EJDC), I like his chances.
If he's ready to file a complaint this week as he said, then I hope someone will post it here as soon as available. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he's thought through the diversity issues pretty thoroughly by now and will not be going off half-cocked.
Multiple firms are already doing these cases across the country. You guys act like this is groundbreaking. Levin Papantonio is spearheading this just like big tobacco. That is who drug companies are scared of.
Hep C settled for a little over 300 mil (or so I heard).
Complaint was filed today per his office.
I have a hard time believing that under any set of facts that the case would be litigated in the Eighth Judicial District Court. Most likely it gets removed to federal court (I think removal would be based upon a federal question rather than diversity jurisdiction. I would bet there is a federal statute that could be used to remove it. e.g. The Controlled Substance Act; Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970; or the like.
If for some reason, Eglet is able to keep it in state court. Clark County is not an independent entity but rather a political subdivision of the State of Nevada. Unlike other states, Nevada does not have home rule, but rather the subdivisions can only do those things that the state legislature authorizes them to do. That of course raises the interesting question of whether because the real party in interest in the State of Nevada, could the defendants successfully invoke the original jurisdiction of SCOTUS pursuant to Article III, section 2 (State as a party).
Whether or not it goes to federal court, I would say that it is a safe bet that it doesn't remain in the Eighth Judicial District Court. Our state court system is established in such a way that only the District Judge is a state employee, every other employee within the building is actually a county employee (See NRS 3.100; 3.245-3.380). With Clark County participating as a party in the action, if it would remain in state court I would anticipate it would be changed to a different venue to avoid the conflict of interest.
If they really wanted to make these companies crap their pants, should have got Paul Powell. According to the television that is exactly the reaction he can cause in defendants.
further to fed ct vs state ct:
JPML Sends Opioid MDL To Northern Ohio
By Diana Novak Jones
Law360, Chicago (December 6, 2017, 9:58 PM EST) — The wave of lawsuits filed by local governments in the wake of the opioid addiction crisis will be centralized in the Northern District of Ohio, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation said Tuesday.
In an order issued less than a week after the panel heard arguments over the creation of an MDL to govern a growing group of suits filed against the manufacturers and distributors of the prescription painkillers, the panel sent the cases to U.S. District Judge Dan A. Polster.
LOL!
You mean that Kutner wouldn't be the correct choice since he is a former insurance attorney and knows how they think?
Clark County
v.
Purdue Pharma LP; Purdue Pharma Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company Inc. dba The Purdue Frederick Company Inc.; Purdue Pharmaceuticals LP; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. nka Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. nka Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC fka Actavis PLC; Actavis Inc. fka Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma Inc. fka Watson Pharma Inc.; Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; McKesson Corporation; Masters Pharmaceutical LLC fka Masters Pharmaceutical Inc.; C & R Pharmacy dba Ken's Pharmacy fka Lam's Pharmacy Inc.; Does
12/6/2017 T17-361
Unfair business practices. Defendants falsely touted the benefits of long-term opioid use so they could make billions in profits, to the detriment of the health and well-being of the citizenry.
Robert Eglet
One of the forthcoming opinions is the backpack recording child custody case. Anyone else following this one? The opinion should be interesting as it relates to NRS 50.285.
Affirmed 7-0
Cite?
I agree with the posters from Monday, who everyone seemed to attack, who thought lawsuits against the manufacturers are a bad idea.
But these posters were attacked largely based on specific erroneous or questionable arguments offered as to very specific matters. So, once they really got in the weeds, and some of their info. was not accurate, they were attacked.
This often happens when one offers too much info. for their argument. But looking at the posters' points in a much more broad and general sense, those who attacked them seem to have been distracted by relatively minor matters.
For example, when the posters makes the point that the focus should remain on over-prescribing physicians and people who possess such drugs without a prescription, some responding posters believed it was particularly relevant to point out that prescribing physicians and the drug abusers are often dealt with in the criminal realm, while this new civil litigation will be an entirely different procedure or mechanism.
Ultimately, none of that really matters and does nothing to invalidate the points being made. The posters were pointing out to keep firmly focused on the physicians who abuse the process as well as those who abuse the drugs. Pursuing manufactures who are merely meeting demands based on the volume needed by prescribing physicians, is really a reach.
How do they know, and what duty do they have, and what mechanism do they have, to investigate all this and determine that less than half of what they manufacture are being validly used. And if they do cut their production in half or more, that will simply make the skilled abusers more adroit at gaming the system, and they will be the ones to get their meat hooks on the dwindling supply. Grandpa with a spinal fusion will be the one who suffers because it will be much more difficult to obtain the meds.
So, unless the manufacturers are intentionally lacing these medications to make them more addictive, I simply don't see the basis of all this. I won't go as far as the one poster, to say it is "stupid", but I really have difficulty envisioning any theory that will be ultimately successful.
By analogy,because we appear powerless to curtail gun violence by beefing up criminal sanctions, back grounds checks and the like, does that justify pursuing the manufacturer? Some say it would, but not me.
I'm definitely not a gun person, but pursuing the manufacturers, based on psychos getting hold of these weapons is simply wrong(and in most cases the psycho is not the weapon's actual owner so beefed up background checks and psych, evals. would accomplish nothing)
These manufacturers are telling doctors to prescribe pain killers for long term use, which they know is improper. The drug companies also know the consumption is to high for the demographic area. As more discovery is going there will be memos that just destroy the drug manufacturers. In every case there is always memos that show they knew exactly what was going on.
Sure…and let's remember that trial/litigation losses are built in to the drug prices.
The Supreme Court exempted judges from the $40 CLE fee. Not surprising, but disappointing. https://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/government/nevada-supreme-court-exempts-itself-from-annual-fee/
That is why Tony Like keeps running.
Liker
really a non-issue as the fee, like the judge's bar dues and CLE classes would be paid for by either the Court/County or the AOC budget(s). The judges do not pay for these items individually anyways so for them it's a non-issue and only a savings/loss on the government books anyways [Funds from one government budget moving into another government budget item]
The $40 fee is supposed to pay for the review of CLE requirements and the approval of courses, etc. and to pay the salaries of the employees who do these functions. The judges cause just as much of a time commitment for these people as any other attorney. There are lots of attorneys who work for the government and they are not exempt from the fee.
The question of course is whether those other government employees pay for the fee personally, or whether it is paid for by a governmental entity. At least as for the judges, it is paid for by a governmental entity rather than by them personally. A second, potential issue would be whether the CLE board is technically under the judicial or executive branches of the state, as that could potentially implicate separation of powers issues.
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but there are now 14 law schools, including Harvard and Georgetown (and closer to home BYU and U of A), that will accept the GRE instead of the LSAT. Just what we need – making it easier for a wider pool of candidates to get into law school. Here is the WSJ article:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/law-schools-say-please-come-no-lsat-required-1512556201?mod=e2tw
Remind me what is empirically so superior about the LSAT versus the GRE in determining fitness for law school?
Fair point – maybe the GRE is just as good a measuring stick. However, here is how the article differentiates the two: "The LSAT has long bedeviled wannabe law school students. Unlike the GRE, which like college entrance exams relies on knowledge that can be memorized, the LSAT evaluates logical reasoning and reading comprehension. The GRE is used for admission to myriad graduate programs for the arts and sciences alike."
Where would one find the goose which laid the Golden Eglet? Is it anywhere near the leprechauns' pot o' gold?
I can sleep at night knowing Eglet is going after the pill pushers. My sarcasm penetrates. No conflicts there.