Broward Cnty. v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig.)
| Decision Date | 27 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:17-md-2804,MDL 2804 |
| Parties | IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Broward County, Florida v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. Case No. 18-op-45332 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are three separate motions to dismiss the Complaint (Doc. #: 5251) filed against plaintiff Broward County, Florida.2 Pharmacies,3 Distributors,4 and Manufacturers5 each filed a group motion, seeking dismissal of Broward's claims against them.6 Doc. #: 582 (Pharmacies); Doc. #: 591 (Distributors); Doc. #: 593 (Manufacturers). Broward filed an omnibus opposition thataddressed all three motions. Doc. #: 730. The three Defendant groups each filed replies in support of their respective motions. Doc. #: 825 (Pharmacies); Case No. 1:18-op-45332, Doc. #: 81 (Distributors); Doc. #: 814 (Manufacturers). Broward later filed two notices of supplemental authority. Doc. ##: 790; 901.
The Court has reviewed all of the parties' submissions. For the reasons stated below, the Court now rules as follows: Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED with respect to Counts VII (Negligent Marketing); and Count XIII (Punitive Damages). The motions are otherwise DENIED.
The Court incorporates by reference the applicable legal standards set forth in its Opinion and Order in West Boca Medical Center, Inc. v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., Case No. 1:18-op-45530, MDL Doc. #: 3253 at 2-3.
In its Complaint, Broward County asserts the following claims:
Most of Broward's allegations of Defendants' conduct are similar to those alleged in complaints filed in (i) West Boca (ii) Summit County, (ii) Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and (iii) Blackfeet Tribe cases.10 See Doc. ##: 385; 514; 731; Case No. 18-op-45749, Doc. #: 6. The Magistrate Judge and this Court have addressed those factual allegations at length. See Doc. #: 3253; Summit County Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Doc. #: 1025; Muscogee Nation R&R Doc. #: 1499; Blackfeet Tribe R&R, Doc. #: 1500; Opinion and Order on SummitCounty, Doc. #: 1203; Opinion and Order on Tribe Cases, Doc. #: 1680. Thus, the Court provides below only a brief overview of the factual allegations specific to Broward, and incorporates by reference the general factual circumstances surrounding the opioid crisis and the allegations of Defendants' behavior that are common to all of these cases.
Broward alleges the Manufacturer Defendants, also referred to as "Marketing Defendants," manufacture, sell, and market prescription opioid painkillers. Broward alleges the Marketing Defendants fueled the opioid crisis "through a massive marketing campaign premised on false and incomplete information," which "engineered a dramatic shift in how and when opioids were prescribed by the medical community and used by patients." Doc. #: 520 at ¶13. Broward alleges the Marketing Defendants dramatically increased sales of prescription opioids despite their knowledge "that opioids were addictive and subject to abuse, and that their other claims regarding the risks, benefits, and superiority of opioids for long-term use were untrue and unfounded." Doc. #: 520 at ¶14. Broward alleges Defendants reaped billions of dollars of profit as a result of opioid sales. Doc. #: 520 at ¶¶15-16.
Broward further alleges Defendants "failed to maintain effective controls over the distribution of prescription opioids" and instead "actively sought to evade such controls." Doc. #: 520 at ¶17. Broward alleges Defendants "contributed substantially to the opioid crisis by selling and distributing far greater quantities of prescription opioids than they know could be necessary for legitimate medical uses, while failing to report, and to take steps to halt suspicious orders," which exacerbated the overall supply of opioids and fueled an illegal secondary market. Doc. #: 520 at ¶17. Broward alleges Defendants' conduct has had "severe and far-reaching public health, social services, and criminal justice consequences," the costs of which are borne by Plaintiff and other governmental entities. Doc. #: 520 at ¶22.
In its complaint, Broward County alleges "it is at the center of the opioid epidemic that plagues the nation," and that "South Florida, and Broward County in particular, have suffered some of the largest numbers of opioid overdose deaths in the country." Doc. #: 520 at ¶2. Broward alleges that, as a result of the "startling number of overdose deaths" in the County, its resources have been strained and it has "incur[ed] substantial and unusual costs for providing, amongst other things, health care, foster care, law enforcement and emergency responder services, criminal justice administration, public assistance, addiction treatment programs, overdose reversal medications, neonatal abstinence syndrome treatment, and other social services and public programs." Doc. #: 520 at ¶3.
More specifically, Broward alleges that, due to the severity of the opioid crisis, it was forced to provide additional services above and beyond what it normally provides, causing it to suffer significant financial consequences and unanticipated costs. See Doc. #: 520 at ¶¶661-62. The County alleges it incurred the following additional and unanticipated costs:
increased healthcare expenditures, law enforcement and judicial expenditures, increased jail and public works expenditures, increased substance abuse treatment and diversion plan expenditures, increased emergency and medical care services and autopsies, increased health insurance costs, the costs of processing and paying for fraudulent prescriptions and lost economic opportunity.
Doc. #: 520 at ¶662.
Broward also alleges the opioid crisis caused by Defendants forced the County to make large, unplanned-for expenditures in order to protect the health and welfare of its community, "costing millions in health insurance, treatment services, autopsies, emergency room visits, medical care, treatment for related illnesses and accidents, payments for fraudulent or medically unnecessary prescriptions and lost productivity to Broward County's workforce." Doc. #: 520 at ¶¶662, 999.
Defendants assert that Broward is not an appropriate plaintiff to bring these claims. Pharmacies assert that Broward lacks standing under Article III of the Constitution. See Doc. #: 582-1 at 2. And Manufacturers assert that Broward, as a municipality, may not infringe upon the exclusive power of the State of Florida under the statewide concern doctrine. See Doc. #: 593-1 at 2-3. As discussed below, the Court finds these arguments not well-taken.
The Pharmacies and Broward both incorporate briefing on the issue of Article III standing from the briefs in Summit County, and add nothing new. See Doc. ##: 593-1 at 2; 730 at 9. The analysis of standing pursuant to Article III is unchanged under Florida law; thus the reasoning and conclusion reached in Summit County is equally appropriate here. See Doc. #: 1025 at 100-02, adopted by Doc. #: 1203. Accordingly, Broward has standing under Article III.
Manufacturers assert the Statewide Concern Doctrine precludes standing for Broward as a matter of Florida law. See Doc. #: 593-1 at 2-3. They assert that, where an issue has statewide significance, the Doctrine prohibits a municipal corporation from vindicating its own rights through litigation because doing so would infringe the State's exclusive power to address that issue. See Doc. #: 593-1 at 2-3. In making their argument, Manufacturers assert, without citing any legal support, that "[j]ust as these principles preclude local ordinances that seek to regulate matters of statewide concern, the same limitations apply equally to litigation brought by political subdivisions." Doc. #: 593-1 at 2 (emphasis in original). As was the case in Summit County, where the Court analyzed a similar argument under Ohio law, Manufacturer's argument fails.
The Florida Constitution grants to counties "all powers of local self-government not inconsistent with general law, or with special law approved by vote of the electors." Fla. Const. art. VIII, § 1(g). In State v. Broward County, 468 So. 2d 965 (1985), the Florida Supreme Court stated it has "broadly interpreted the self-governing powers granted charter counties under article VIII, section 1(g)." Id. at 969. Further, Section 125.01 of the Florida Statutes sets out the powers of counties: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial