SALT LAKE CITY (Legal Newsline) – Companies facing opioid litigation in Utah should be encouraged by a recent state Supreme Court decision that allowed the transfer of one of the cases – a sign that defendants might not have to fight more than 10 fronts in the state.
On April 23, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a state judge to send Davis County’s lawsuit to a district that is already handling three other cases. Justice Thomas Lee authored the court’s opinion following Dec. 11 oral arguments in a lawsuit that alleges manufacturers and distributors of opioids caused the nation’s addiction crisis.
There are thousands of similar cases around the country, with around 2,500 pending in a federal multidistrict litigation in Cleveland.
The issue in Utah is whether to consolidate the 15 cases pending in state courts there, with at least one in each of the eight judicial districts.
In the Third District, where the first case was filed by Summit County, a judge partially granted a motion to consolidate.
But the order, which defendants sought in order to make pretrial discovery simpler, only consolidated the three cases already in the Third District. The judge invited colleagues presiding over opioid cases in other courts to send their cases to the Third District for pretrial coordination.
In the Second District, Janssen Pharmaceuticals – a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson – motioned to transfer Davis County’s case to the Third District. It was opposed by the private lawyers hired by the county on a contingency fee.
But the motion was granted under the argument that the court has the “inherent power to manage its cases and docket,” a ruling now affirmed by the state Supreme Court.
The Second District noted the need for conservation of judicial resources would be fulfilled by avoiding having 11 judges manage 12 opioid lawsuits. Consolidation would also help the parties avoid inconsistent legal rulings among the districts.
“A plaintiff’s choice of its home forum should not be overridden lightly,” Justice Lee wrote. “Multi-district litigation, moreover, is not without its drawbacks, and we are not suggesting that a motion to transfer a case from one district to another should be granted lightly.
“We affirm the transfer order in this case, however, because we see no substantial inconvenience to Davis County resulting from a transfer to the Third District for pretrial purposes, and because the district court weighed the relevant costs and benefits of transfer in a manner meriting our deference on appeal.”
From Legal Newsline: Reach editor John O’Brien at john.obrien@therecordinc.com.