The Kenosha County Legislative Committee unanimously approved May 30 a resolution confirming and ratifying county counsel’s authority to add additional defendants to the county’s opioid litigation, including parties in Multidistrict Litigation MDL 2804.

County counsel told the committee the county joined litigation in 2017 against opioid manufacturers and later expanded claims to include distributors, pharmacy chains and, most recently, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Counsel said the original engagement letter authorized counsel to add additional appropriate parties as discovery and investigation proceeded.

“While it was focused on opioid manufacturers and that was where the litigation started, it has continued to evolve over these past eight years,” Mr. Cardamone said, describing the 2017 engagement and subsequent expansions. Counsel told supervisors that one PBM has mounted a procedural challenge, arguing counties did not properly authorize adding it as a defendant. Counsel said the county had received a public-records request and a notice of claim challenging the authority; the resolution before the committee would ratify prior steps and authorize counsel to proceed.

Counsel told the committee the litigation is organized so that each municipality is a separate plaintiff but many matters are handled together in a consolidated court process; he described the case as “oddly situated” and said “it's not technically a class action suit.” He also said the county works with a national firm and Wisconsin attorneys; those firms recommended ratification to remove ambiguity and avoid a procedural hurdle in court.

Mr. Cardamone said most Wisconsin counties joined similar litigation and engagement arrangements; he estimated roughly 68 of 72 counties had signed on at one point and that about 52 to 53 counties remained with the current group of defendants. He characterized the notice of claim as an effort to create uncertainty and said ratification would clarify the county’s position.

A supervisor moved and another seconded the resolution; the committee approved it unanimously. Counsel said the resolution would be forwarded as part of the board process and that the ratification is intended to eliminate any question about counsel’s authority to add defendants in the ongoing MDL proceedings.