Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marathon County committee unanimously forwards resolution ratifying counsel's authority in opioid litigation
Summary
The Marathon County Executive Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the County Board adopt a resolution ratifying county counsel's authority to add defendants to the county's opioid litigation, including in MDL No. 2804.
Get email alerts on the Opioid Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Marathon County Executive Committee on an executive-committee motion unanimously recommended that the full County Board adopt a resolution ratifying the authority of county counsel to add additional defendants to the county's opioid litigation, including in MDL No. 2804.
The resolution, presented by Corp Counsel Purner, would formally confirm that the county's class-action counsel may add defendants in the ongoing litigation. Purner told the committee he had reviewed the draft resolution and said he saw no legal concern: "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." The committee took no substantive amendments or additional conditions during its discussion.
The measure responds to the fact that the county previously authorized participation in opioid-related class actions by a 2018 County Board resolution; that earlier resolution reportedly allowed the law firm to add defendants without a separate vote. Purner said recent claims in related litigation raised questions about whether the earlier authorization extended far enough, and the new resolution would ratify those earlier counsel decisions.
Supervisor Robinson moved to recommend adoption of the resolution to the County Board. Supervisor Arstead seconded the motion; Vice Chair Dickinson registered a third supporting remark. The chair called for a voice vote; committee members answered in the affirmative and the chair declared the motion unanimous. The committee's action was to forward the resolution to the full County Board for consideration and possible adoption.
The committee did not take additional formal actions on the substance of the litigation beyond the recommendation. The Executive Committee's next scheduled meeting was announced as June 12 at 3 p.m.; no County Board hearing date for the resolution was specified during the committee discussion.

