[ad_1]
CLEVELAND, Ohio – Lawyers representing several pharmaceutical companies involved in thousands of federal lawsuits against the opioid crisis filed a petition on Saturday morning seeking the disqualification of US District Judge Dan Polster, raising questions about his impartiality.
In a 39-page factum attached to the motion, the lawyers refer to Polster's "unusual level of commitment" in a settlement that they believe influenced his decision-making in the context of the historical lawsuits.
City and county lawyers suing the drug companies described the motion as a desperate ploy to evade accountability.
(You can read the memoir right here or at the bottom of this story.)
Among the companies that filed the application are mega-retailers Walmart, Walgreens, CVS and Rite Aid, as well as drug distributors Amerisource Bergen, McKesson and Cardinal Health, Ohio. No drug manufacturer has adhered to the motion.
"The accused do not bring this motion lightly," says the memoir. "As a whole and viewed objectively, the record clearly shows that challenge is necessary."
According to the lawyers, this file includes the judge's statements, negotiations, interviews with the media and his "particular interest in … the settlement discussions".
The motion comes at a pivotal moment in more than 2,000 federal prosecutions heard by Polster in Cleveland. A lawsuit for the lawsuits filed by the counties of Cuyahoga and Summit is expected to begin next month.
The judge recently denied attempts by pharmaceutical companies to file lawsuits. A jury should decide if they are guilty.
Three manufacturers – Mallinckrodt, Endo International and Allergan – have agreements with the counties. The manufacturer of OxyContin, Purdue Pharma, has also tentatively agreed to a potentially $ 12 billion settlement to resolve thousands of lawsuits filed in federal and state courts at the national level. .
On Wednesday, Polster certified a "negotiating class" to encourage massive litigation lawsuits, accusing drug makers of minimizing dependence of prescription pain medications and dispensers not to report suspicious orders. Meanwhile, companies have recorded significant profits and a wave of dependency and death has hit every pocket of the United States, according to the lawsuits.
The order gave tens of thousands of cities and counties the green light to unite to negotiate with the defendants, who denied that they had committed wrongdoing.
Dozens of state attorneys general, most of whom have lawsuits in the courts, have objected to the negotiating structure approved by Polster. Last month, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost appealed to the US Circuit Court of Appeals to terminate the federal lawsuit, claiming he had the power to plead his opioid lawsuits in the name of of all residents of that State. The lawsuit would prevent him from doing so, said the attorney general.
This highly publicized trial highlighted Polster's preference for settlements, something long known to the Cleveland legal community. The president appointed by Bill Clinton, who served on the bench in 1998, has been asked by other federal judges in the US Court Carl B. Stokes to resolve disputes over several major local issues. These include the shooting death of 12-year-old Cleveland police officer Tamir Rice and the city's plan to impose restrictions on much of the city center at the Republican National Convention. of 2016.
A panel named Polster to oversee the federal opioid lawsuits in December 2017. A month later he declared in front of a crowded court room and in front of other people listening on the phone that he was considering a settlement massive to resolve all prosecutions initiated by the states and the federal government so that the money can be used to solve the associated problems. with opioid dependence.
"I do not think anyone in the country is interested in this, and I am not, either," said the judge at the January 2018 hearing. "People are not not interested in depositions, discoveries and trials. People are not interested in finding the answer to interesting legal questions such as preemption and intermediate learning, or in unraveling complicated theories of conspiracy. "
Saturday's petition contains numerous statements by Polster that, according to the company, illustrate his lack of impartiality, including what the judge said at the first hearing. Lawyers also cite the "bargaining category" as evidence of the judge's mission of resolving cases at all costs.
"The Court is deeply involved in the discussions for a settlement, so that it must be excluded from any summary proceedings with a view to obtaining a fair remedy," the submission said. Together, these factors do more than just raise a reasonable question as to the impartiality of the Court – in such cases of such national importance and of such magnitude, both for the complainants and the the defendants, no reasonable question as to the impartiality of the Court can be tolerated. "
Attorneys Paul Hanly, Paul Farrell and Joe Rice, who sit on the plaintiffs' executive committee, said in a statement that the motion "is simply a desperate move on the eve of the opioid companies trial that created, fueled and maintained the crisis that followed the judgments ". by the court concluding that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that these companies had created a public nuisance and conspired together to avoid regulation and penalties. "
They said that Polster is well regarded as a federal judge.
The editor of Cleveland.com, Kris Wernowsky, contributed to this story.
[ad_2]
Source link