Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Nuisance Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to curb contingency-fee municipal nuisance suits, pushing review to attorney general
Summary
HB 2069 would require Attorney General review before political subdivisions hire contingency-fee counsel for public-nuisance litigation and narrow the public-nuisance theory; supporters said it would prevent policy-making through the courts, while critics warned of limiting local tools for issues such as opioid abatement.
The committee voted to report House Bill 2069 to Calendar and Rules after a debate over whether municipal nuisance suits on contingency create policy-by-litigation. Sponsor Representative Todd said the bill restores guardrails by requiring the attorney general to review contingency-fee litigation contracts before a political subdivision can hire outside lawyers.
Representative Mitchell and others asked whether the bill would prevent local governments from pursuing opioid-abatement claims; the sponsor said the bill preserves consumer-protection and product-liability remedies and that the attorney general review is intended to coordinate when lawsuits have multi-jurisdictional, statewide implications. Legal counsel described the distinction between private and public nuisance and noted the bill aims to limit broad expansions of public-nuisance theory.
After discussion the committee voted to send HB 2069 forward. The clerk announced the tally: 15 ayes, 5 noes, 1 present not voting.
