Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 8, 2023

City of Sacramento v. McKinsey and Co., Inc.

Judge
Charles Breyer
Docket
3:23-cv-01062
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

City of Sacramento v. McKinsey, Judge Breyer transferred the action to coordinated pretrial proceedings in the opioid-consultant litigation.

Who this affects

City of Sacramento et al., McKinsey and Co., Inc. et al., and the related actions included in the multidistrict proceedings.

What happened

City of Sacramento et al. v. McKinsey and Co., Inc. et al. was listed as a related action in multidistrict litigation involving McKinsey and Company, Inc. and prescription-opiate consulting claims. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determined that the action involved factual questions common to cases already transferred to the Northern District of California.

The Panel ordered the action transferred under the federal multidistrict-litigation statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The schedule identifies the action as Case No. 23-00141 in the Eastern District of California before transfer. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.

The transfer was assigned, with that court’s consent, to Judge Charles R. Breyer. The order stated that it would become effective when filed in the Northern District of California; transmission was stayed for seven days, subject to any opposition filed with the Panel.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
City of Sacramento v. McKinsey and Co., Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-01062
Judge
Charles Breyer
Date
Mar. 8, 2023

Background

This document is Conditional Transfer Order 42 in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: McKinsey & Company, Inc., National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation, MDL No. 2996. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation stated that it had previously transferred civil actions to the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Additional actions had since been transferred there and assigned, with the court’s consent, to Judge Charles R. Breyer.

The schedule to CTO-42 listed “City of Sacramento et al v. McKinsey and Co., Inc. et al,” Case No. 23-00141, as a tag-along action from the Eastern District of California. The Panel stated that the action appeared to involve factual questions common to the actions already transferred to the Northern District of California.

Ruling

The Panel ordered the action transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the Northern District of California for the reasons stated in its earlier transfer order and assigned it to Judge Breyer. This was a venue and case-management ruling for pretrial coordination; the document did not resolve the merits of the parties’ claims.

The order stated that the transfer would not become effective until filed in the Northern District of California. Transmission of the order to that court’s clerk was stayed for seven days from entry, and the stay could continue if a party filed a notice of opposition with the Panel during that period.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.