City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P.

Background

This opinion is a remand order from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the national prescription-opioid litigation. Multidistrict litigation centralizes related federal cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The Panel had previously placed the San Francisco action and a Cherokee Nation action on a conditional remand order after the judge overseeing the centralized proceedings suggested that they be returned to their original federal districts.

The overseeing judge explained that continuing the existing bellwether-trial process would take too long. He recommended strategically returning selected cases so that other federal judges could work on different parts of the litigation at the same time, while he continued other trials and pursued possible global settlements. The Panel gave substantial weight to that recommendation because the overseeing judge supervised the day-to-day pretrial proceedings.

Arguments about San Francisco

The defendants opposed remanding the San Francisco action. They argued that related California state-court cases could produce conflicting rulings and duplicate recoveries. They also pointed to the California Attorney General’s threat to assume control of opioid cases brought by municipalities and objected to the cost of proceeding with a large case.

The plaintiffs responded that San Francisco would provide geographic diversity among the bellwether cases and that any overlap with state-court proceedings could be managed. They also stated that San Francisco was the only bellwether trial at that point that offered the possibility of trying a civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The overseeing judge selected San Francisco because it named manufacturer and distributor defendants, many of whom had completed or nearly completed global discovery, and because it came from a different jurisdiction than earlier bellwether cases. The opinion notes that the reference to pharmacy defendants was erroneous and that the parties agreed San Francisco did not involve pharmacy defendants.

Ruling

The Panel declined to second-guess the overseeing judge’s selection of the San Francisco and Cherokee Nation cases. It found that remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 was warranted and ordered the two actions remanded: the Cherokee Nation action to the Eastern District of Oklahoma and the San Francisco action to the Northern District of California. The order addressed case management and venue within the multidistrict proceeding; it did not decide the merits of San Francisco’s underlying claims. Judge Charles Breyer is identified in the supplied case information, but the opinion is issued by the Panel and lists K. Caldwell as its chair.