County of Amador v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.
- Charles Breyer
- 3:22-cv-07179
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
County of Amador v. McKinsey was transferred for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the opioid litigation, an order involving Judge Breyer.
The County of Amador action against McKinsey and Company, Inc., along with the related actions listed in the transfer schedule, was affected by the transfer to the Northern District of California.
What happened
County of Amador et al. v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. was listed as one of several related lawsuits involving common factual questions in the national prescription-opiate consultant litigation.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation conditionally transferred the action from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The order would become effective when filed in the Northern District of California, and the Panel lifted the seven-day stay because no objection was pending.
With the Northern District of California’s consent, the action was assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- County of Amador v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-07179
- Charles Breyer
- Nov. 15, 2022
Background
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued Conditional Transfer Order 33 in the multidistrict litigation concerning McKinsey & Company, Inc. and prescription-opiate consulting. The Panel stated that the listed actions appeared to involve factual questions common to actions previously transferred to the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The schedule identified the action as County of Amador et al. v. McKinsey and Company, Inc., case number 22-01917, in the Eastern District of California.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Rule 7.1 of the Panel’s rules, the Panel conditionally transferred the action to the Northern District of California. The transfer was for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings and was based on the reasons stated in the Panel’s earlier transfer order. With the Northern District of California’s consent, the action was assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer.
The order stated that it would not become effective until filed with the clerk of the Northern District of California. Transmission of the order was initially stayed for seven days to allow objections. The Panel stated that no objection was pending and lifted the stay. The order addressed case management and transfer; it did not decide the merits of the parties’ claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.