Nye County v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.
- Charles Breyer
- 3:22-cv-07699
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Nye County v. McKinsey was transferred to coordinated proceedings before Judge Breyer in the Northern District of California.
Nye County and McKinsey and Company, Inc.; the case was transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with related actions in the multidistrict litigation.
What happened
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation identified Nye County v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. as involving factual questions shared with other opioid-consultant cases already pending in coordinated proceedings.
The panel ordered the case transferred from Nevada to the Northern District of California under the federal multidistrict-litigation statute. The transfer would become effective when filed with that court, and the panel lifted the waiting period because no objection was pending.
The order assigned the transferred case to Judge Charles R. Breyer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. It did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Nye County v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-07699
- Charles Breyer
- Dec. 5, 2022
Background
This was a conditional transfer order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the national prescription-opiate consultant litigation, MDL No. 2996. The panel stated that the case involved factual questions common to cases previously transferred to the Northern District of California.
Transfer
The panel transferred Nye County v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. from the District of Nevada to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. That statute permits related civil actions involving common factual questions to be coordinated or consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The panel stated that the transfer was made for the reasons given in its June 7, 2021 order and, with the receiving court’s consent, assigned the case to Judge Charles R. Breyer.
Effect of the Order
The order stated that it would not become effective until filed with the clerk of the Northern District of California. The transmittal was initially stayed for seven days to allow an objection. The order then stated that, because no objection was pending, the stay was lifted. The order addressed only transfer and pretrial assignment; it did not resolve the merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.