DCH Health Care Auth. v. Purdue Pharma LP (Ex parte Johnson & Johnson)
| Decision Date | 31 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | 1190423 |
| Citation | 330 So.3d 480 |
| Parties | EX PARTE JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al. (In re: DCH Health Care Authority et al. v. Purdue Pharma LP et al.) |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Christopher S. Berdy and Caroline D. Walker of Butler Snow LLP, Birmingham; and Charles C. Lifland and Justine M. Daniels of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California, for petitioners Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Robert K. Spotswood and Joshua K. Payne of Spotswood Sansom & Sansbury LLC, Birmingham, for petitioner Cardinal Health, Inc.
Andrew P. Campbell and Cason M. Kirby of Campbell Partners, LLC, Birmingham; and Conor B. O'Croinin of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and CVS Indiana, L.L.C.
Sela S. Blanton and Elizabeth L. Nicholson of Bainbridge, Mims, Rogers & Smith, LLP, Birmingham; and Christopher N. Nahley and Ronda L. Harvey of Bowles Rice LLP, Parkersburg, West Virginia, for petitioners The Kroger Co. and Kroger Limited Partnership II.
Anne Stone Sumblin of Stone Sumblin Law LLC, Kinston; and Lester C. Houtz and Alex J. Harris of Bartlit Beck LLP, Denver, Colorado, for petitioners Walgreen Co. and Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc.
Alan T. Hargrove, Jr., and Dennis R. Bailey of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A., Montgomery, for petitioners Walmart, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP.
John A. Henig, Jr., and Richard K. Vann, Jr., of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery; and John P. McDonald and Brandan Montminy of Locke Lord, LLP, Dallas, Texas, for petitioner Henry Schein, Inc.
Sara M. Turner of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Birmingham; and Samuel Lonergan of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, New York, for petitioners Endo Health Solutions, Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
Wendy West Feinstein of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Bert P. Taylor of Taylor Partners, LLC, Orange Beach, for petitioners Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis LLC, and Actavis Pharma, Inc.
Robert C. "Mike" Brock, F. Chadwick Morriss, and Jennifer G. Levy, P.C., of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.; and Donna Welch, P.C., and Timothy Knapp of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for petitioners Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan Sales, LLC, and Allergan USA, Inc.
Gerald C. Swann, Jr., of Ball, Ball, Matthews & Novak, P.A., Montgomery; Daniel G. Jarcho of Alston & Bird LLP, Washington, D.C.; and Cari K. Dawson and Jenny A. Hergenrother of Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for petitioner Noramco, Inc.
Thomas E. Walker of White, Arnold & Dowd P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC.
H. Lanier Brown II and J. Patrick Strubel of Watkins & Eager PLLC, Birmingham, for petitioners AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation and H.D. Smith, LLC, f/k/a H.D. Smith Wholesale Drug Co.
Donald C. Radcliff of Brady, Radcliff & Brown LLP, Mobile; and John A. McCauley of Venable LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for petitioners Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Laboratories Inc.
Bert P. Taylor of Taylor Partners, LLC, Orange Beach; and James W. Matthews, Ana M. Francisco, and Katy E. Koski of Foley & Lardner LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for petitioner Anda, Inc.
George P. Irvine III of Stone Crosby, P.C., Daphne; Kelly A. Moore of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York, New York; and Coleen M. Meehan and Elisa P. McEnroe of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for petitioners Rite Aid of Alabama, Inc., and Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc.
W. Lloyd Copeland and Steve Martino of Taylor Martino, P.C., Mobile; Robert C. King of The King Law Firm, PC, Monroeville; and J. Russell Gibson III of Phelps Jenkins Gibson & Fowler, LLP, Tuscaloosa, respondents.
Samantha K.N. Burnett of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., San Francisco, California; and Philip S. Goldberg of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for amici curiae International Association of Defense Counsel and American Tort Reform Association, in support of the petitioners.
Johnson & Johnson and other pharmaceutical defendants1 in the underlying action filed in the Conecuh Circuit Court petition this Court for a writ of mandamus compelling that court to transfer the underlying action filed against them by DCH Health Care Authority and other plaintiffs2 from Conecuh County to Jefferson County, on the basis that venue in Conecuh County is not proper as to all plaintiffs or, alternatively, on the basis that the convenience of the parties and/or the interest of justice requires it. We deny the petition.
On September 19, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Conecuh Circuit Court against numerous defendants that, they aver, manufacture, market, distribute, and/or dispense opioid medications throughout Alabama in a manner that is misleading, unsafe, and has resulted in drug addiction, injury, and/or death to Alabama citizens. The complaint asserts claims of negligence, nuisance, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit, wantonness, and civil conspiracy.3 The plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages because, they say, they have incurred and will incur "massive costs by providing uncompensated care as a result of opioid-related conditions."
On December 31, 2019, the manufacturer defendants4 filed a motion to transfer the case to Jefferson County because, they said, the doctrine of forum non conveniens required it.5 With regard to the convenience-of-the-parties prong of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, see § 6-3-21.1(a), Ala. Code 1975, the manufacturer defendants reasoned that, because, they said, 8 of the 17 plaintiffs either have a place of business in Jefferson County or operate hospitals in Jefferson County or adjacent counties, logic dictated that a large percentage of the witnesses for those plaintiffs, i.e., prescribing doctors, hospital administrators, etc., and their evidence are located in or around Jefferson County. Therefore, they maintained, it would be more convenient for those witnesses for the case to be heard in Jefferson County. They further contended that, because, they said, 11 of the 17 plaintiffs have a principal place of business or operate in counties in north Alabama, those plaintiffs and their witnesses would be inconvenienced by travel of more than 2 ½ hours to Conecuh County. Likewise, they maintained that, because the defendants' principal places of business are outside Alabama and their counsel and witnesses reside outside Alabama, travel to Conecuh County for litigation was also inconvenient for defense witnesses. They urged that, because Jefferson County is more centrally located in the State and is the location of Alabama's largest airport, Jefferson County's geographic location made it a substantially more convenient forum for the plaintiffs, the defendants, and all potential witnesses.
With regard to the interest-of-justice prong, the manufacturer defendants contended that transfer of the case to Jefferson County was required because, they said, Jefferson County has a strong "nexus" to the litigation and Conecuh County's connection is tenuous at best. They argued that Conecuh County's connection is weak because only one of the 17 plaintiffs, Gilliard Health Services, Inc., had its principal place of business in Conecuh County;6 that none of the defendants have a principal place of business or office in Conecuh County; that only a fraction of one percent of the alleged conduct giving rise to the action occurred in Conecuh County; and that the plaintiffs did not allege that a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" even occurred in Conecuh County. The manufacturer defendants argued that, unlike Conecuh County's weak connection to the case, Jefferson County had both a substantially strong nexus to the case and a far greater interest in overseeing its adjudication. They observed that 8 of the 17 plaintiffs had a principal place of business in Jefferson County or adjacent Shelby, Tuscaloosa, and Walker Counties. Citing a Washington Post article, "The Opioid Files: Drilling Into the DEA's Pain Pill Database," dated July 21, 2019, which was also relied upon by the plaintiffs in their complaint, the manufacturer defendants maintained that of the 1,703,752,769 prescription opioid pills supplied to Alabama from 2006 to 2012, 247,636,796 of those pills were supplied to Jefferson County -- more than 39 times the amount supplied to Conecuh County. Thus, they reasoned, the interest of justice required transfer of the action because, they said, Jefferson County had a strong connection to the action and Conecuh County had a "negligible connection to this multi-party, complex litigation."
On January 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a response to the manufacturer defendants' motion for a change of venue. In their response, the plaintiffs noted that the manufacturer defendants had conceded that venue is proper in Conecuh County because the doctrine of forum non conveniens is applicable only when an action is filed in a county in which venue is appropriate.7
The plaintiffs contended that the manufacturer defendants had not met their burden of proving that the convenience of the parties or the interest of justice required transfer of the case from Conecuh County to Jefferson County. The plaintiffs explained that they have hospitals located in multiple counties not in or near Jefferson County and that each of the plaintiffs had "chosen to promote judicial economy and resources by filing one consolidated civil action [in Conecuh County] instead of separate actions [in multiple counties]." The plaintiffs reasoned that, because they decided to join the Conecuh County action, the plaintiffs had selected their forum and that the convenience of the forum for themselves and their witnesses is irrelevant. They further reasoned that the defendants, being foreign...
To continue reading
Request your trial