Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Opioid Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County moves to confirm law firms' authority in ongoing opioid litigation; vote not shown in excerpt
Summary
A resolution ratifying prior delegation of authority to outside counsel to add defendants in Jefferson County's opioid litigation was introduced under special timing rules; the meeting transcript does not include a recorded final vote in the provided excerpt.
Jefferson County introduced a resolution to confirm and ratify the county's prior delegation of authority to outside law firms to add additional defendants in the county's opioid litigation.
A staff member summarized the county's litigation history, saying the county board in 2017 “authorized the county administrator to execute an engagement agreement with Von Briesen and Roper SC, Kruger Dickinson LLC, and Simmons Hanley Conroy LLC... to pursue litigation against manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, among others, of opioid pharmaceuticals.” The staff member said that, during discovery, law firms identified additional meritorious claims against other parties and moved to add those defendants.
The staff member said some recently added defendants, including pharmacy benefit managers, have challenged whether the county's law firms had the authority to add them. The resolution on the floor is described as one that “confirms and ratifies the county's delegation of authority to law firms to add additional defendants to the opioid litigation.” The staff member also noted that the resolution was placed on the county board agenda under time constraints using county ordinance 2‑86(b).
A motion to adopt the resolution was made and seconded during the meeting excerpt; the transcript provided does not include a completed roll‑call or recorded final vote in the excerpt provided to this report. A later portion of the meeting record beyond the provided excerpt should be consulted for the official vote tally and outcome.
The resolution references the county's earlier 2017 engagement authorization and responds to notices of claim filed by at least one pharmacy benefit manager asserting lack of authority as a defense to liability.
No additional legal analysis or next procedural steps were recorded in the excerpt; the staff member emphasized the county's continuing participation in coordinated litigation through retained firms.
