Search court records - party Andrew Durland, page 9

No. 52 Motion for Just Costs and Actual Expenses Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) filed by Plaintiff ...

Document City of Seattle v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al, 1:18-op-45089, No. 52 (N.D.Ohio May. 26, 2022)

Motion for Costs

Seattle recognizes that, exercising discretion, some courts have declined to award costs and fees when the removing party improperly invoked fraudulent misjoinder theory, but none confronted the aggravating circumstances here.

1 None endorsed it.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Dan Aaron Polster (MDL 2804)
Analyze Party
- City of Seattle
Analyze Firm
- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro

No. 3579 Order Regarding Apportionability and Apportionment

Document In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, 1:17-md-02804, No. 3579 (N.D.Ohio Dec. 9, 2020)

“Track Three Cases” Over a year ago, on September 4, 2019, the Court issued an order ruling on “the Motion of Plaintiffs Cuyahoga and Summit Counties for Partial Summary Adjudication of their Equitable Claims for Abatement of an Absolute Public Nuisance.” See docket no. 2572 at 1 (“Nuisance SJ- Order”).

PageID #: 507622 depends on factual issues to be determined at trial,” and “denie[d] Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it seeks a ruling that public nuisance liability is joint and several as a matter of law.” Id. at 6, 7.

The Pharmacy Defendants – apparently relying on the Court’s statement it would determine “at trial” whether their liability (if any) would be joint and several, or instead apportioned – have submitted proposed jury instructions for Track One-B addressing apportionment.

Thus, the Court, exercising its equitable powers, has the discretion to craft a remedy that will require Defendants, if they are found liable, to pay the prospective costs that will allow Plaintiffs’ to abate the opioid crisis.

See, e.g., id. at 8-9 (“While a bench trial may insulate litigants from the inflamed passions of a jury, there is also great virtue in entrusting the judgment of any case – especially one with such broad social significance – to the collective deliberation of twelve citizens representing a cross-section of society, properly instructed by the Court, rather than reposing the entire responsibility in the mind and sensibilities of just one individual.”).

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Dan Aaron Polster (MDL 2804)
Analyze Party
- Plaintiffs Liaison Counsel
Analyze Firm

No. 3499 Order denying Pharmacy Defendants' Motion for reconsideration or certification

Document In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, 1:17-md-02804, No. 3499 (N.D.Ohio Sep. 22, 2020)

Laborers Health & Welfare Fund

PageID #: 502743 Davie v. Mitchell

Morris v. SullivanBolles v. Toledo Trust Co. Track Three OrderMorris Bolles See Track Three OrderMorris Bolles W. Kentucky Royalty Tr. v. Armstrong Coal Reserves, Inc

PageID #: 502745 all Track Three Order only

Track Three Order In re City of Memphis Adell v. Cellco P’ship United States v. Stone

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Dan Aaron Polster (MDL 2804)
Analyze Party
- Plaintiffs Liaison Counsel
Analyze Firm

No. 3362 Order denying Distributors' Motion to Certify Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) the Court's April 30, ...

Document In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, 1:17-md-02804, No. 3362 (N.D.Ohio Jun. 30, 2020)

“[D]oubts regarding appealability [should be] resolved in favor of finding that the interlocutory order is not appealable.” Adell v. Cellco P’ship, No. 1:18cv623, 2019 WL 5285627, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 18, 2019) (quoting United States v. Stone, 53 F.3d 141, 143–44 (6th Cir. 1995)).

This Court previously considered and denied a similar request by Distributors to certify for interlocutory appeal the Court’s partial denial of their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ RICO claims in Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund et al. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. et al, No. 18op45432.

3d 639, 644 (N.D. Ohio 2016) (citation omitted) (declining to certify appeal where defendant cited no precedent calling into question court’s interpretation of statute and failed to demonstrate difference of opinion within or among circuits).

As Distributors state, under Michigan law, “[t]he primary goal of judicial interpretation of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.

Instead, they argue reasonable jurists could disagree with the conclusion that Plaintiff’s claims are not based on “production of a product,” asserting Michigan courts interpret the MPLA’s immunity provisions “broadly.” In support, Distributors rely on cases describing legislative intent and the “myriad of activities” protected by the statute.

Cite Document

Analyze