Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Opioid Litigation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Marathon County executive committee forwards resolution to ratify counsel27s authority to add defendants in opioid litigation

3344099 · May 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Marathon County Executive Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the County Board adopt a resolution ratifying counsel27s authority to add additional defendants to the county27s opioid litigation, including in MDL No. 2804.

The Marathon County Executive Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the County Board adopt a resolution ratifying the authority of the county27s counsel to add additional defendants to Marathon County27s opioid litigation, including in MDL No. 2804.

Court counsel Pierner told the committee the county is one of many plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against opioid manufacturers, distributors and retailers. Pierner said the initial 2018 county resolution had authorized the law firm to add defendants but recent litigation raised questions about whether that authorization extended as far as previously understood. "I don't see anything in this resolution that would concern me. I think it's appropriate and kind of just ratifies what we've already been doing," Pierner said.

Supervisor Robinson moved to recommend adoption of the resolution to the County Board; Supervisor Arstead seconded the motion and Vice Chair Dickinson thirded. The motion passed unanimously, and the committee directed the item to the full County Board for consideration and possible adoption.

The resolution, as discussed, would formally ratify prior decisions by the county's class-action counsel to add defendants to the litigation and explicitly include actions taken in MDL No. 2804. Committee discussion was brief: Pierner summarized the legal background and said, from a legal perspective, he did not see issues with the resolution. No dissenting comments were recorded during the committee's vote.

The committee's recommendation does not by itself change the county's participation in litigation; final ratification requires County Board action. The Executive Committee noted the next County Board consideration will occur under the board's usual process; no date for the board vote was specified in the committee discussion.