Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 1 of 15. PageID #: 477659
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION,
`OPIATE LITIGATION
`
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`
`
`MDL NO. 2804
`
`
`
`Case No. 17-MD-2804
`
`
`
`Judge Dan Aaron Polster
`
`Salmons v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
`MDL Case #1:18-OP-45268;
`
`Flanagan v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
`MDL Case #1:18-OP-45405
`
`Doyle v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
`MDL Case No. #1:18-op-46327
`
`Artz v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al.
`MDL Case No. #1:19-op-45459
`
`
`THE NAS GUARDIANS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND CONSOLIDATED
`MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL
`
`
`Now come Plaintiffs Jacqueline and Roman Ramirez, Melissa Barnwell, Michelle Frost,
`
`and Stephanie Howell, Guardians of NAS1 Children (collectively “Class Representatives”), will
`
`and hereby do move for an order certifying classes defined as:
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`NATIONWIDE CLASSES
`
`A.
`
`DEFINITION
`
`CLASS 1. Legal Guardians2 of United States residents born after March 16, 2000, who
`
`1 The children made the subject of these complaints were diagnosed at birth with Neonatal Abstinence
`Syndrome (NAS), also sometimes referred to as Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome (NOWS), arising
`out of their birth mothers’ use of opioids during pregnancy.
`2 The term “Legal Guardian” is further defined for purposes of this putative class action as “any natural
`person or entity who has the primary legal responsibility under law for an infant or child’s physical, mental,
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 2 of 15. PageID #: 477660
`
`were medically diagnosed with opioid-related NAS3 at or near birth and whose birth mother
`received a prescription for opioids or opiates prior to the birth and those opioids or opiates were
`manufactured, distributed, or filled by a Defendant or Purdue entity. Excluded from the class are
`any infants and children who were treated with opioids after birth, other than for pharmacological
`weaning. Also excluded from the class are legal guardianships where a political subdivision, such
`as a public children services agency, has affirmatively assumed the duties of “custodian” of the
`child.
`
`
`CLASS 2. Legal Guardians4 of United States residents born after March 16, 2000, who
`were medically diagnosed with opioid-related NAS at or near birth and whose birth mother
`received and/or filled a prescription for opioids or opiates in the 10 months prior to the birth of
`said infant or child and those opioids or opiates were manufactured, distributed, or filled by a
`Defendant or Purdue entity.
`
`
`B.
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`(1) MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS
`• Actavis Entities: Allergan PLC f/k/a Actavis PLC f/k/a Allergan, Inc.;
`Allergan Finance, LLC f/k/a Actavis, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharmaceuticals,
`Inc.; Allergan Sales, LLC; Allergan USA, Inc.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.;
`Warner Chilcott Company, LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson
`Pharma Inc.; Actavis South Atlantic LLC; Actavis Elizabeth LLC; Actavis
`Mid Atlantic LLC; Actavis Totowa LLC; Actavis LLC; Actavis Kadian
`LLC; Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. f/k/a Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Salt
`Lake City; Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. f/k/a Watson Laboratories, Inc.-
`Florida.
` Teva Pharmaceutical
`• Cephalon Entities:
`Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.
`• Janssen Entities: Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica,
`Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Noramco, Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-
`
`Industries Ltd.; Teva
`
`
`and emotional development.” Expressly excluded from the class of “Legal Guardians” are any
`governmental entities.
`“Legal Guardians” include natural and adoptive parents who have not otherwise lost legal custody of their
`children, legal custodians, legal caretakers, and court-appointed guardians (including guardians of the
`person), whether temporary or permanent.
`3 The term “NAS” (Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome) is defined to include additional, but medically
`symptomatic identical, terminology and diagnostic criteria, including Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal
`Syndrome (NOWS) and other historically and regionally used medical and/or hospital diagnostic criteria
`for infants born addicted to opioids from in utero exposure. Additional specifics on these readily
`identifiable and ascertainable terms are set forth in the accompanying Consolidated Memorandum of Law,
`¶ II., p. 7.
`4 The term “Legal Guardian” is defined at fn. 2.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 3 of 15. PageID #: 477661
`
`Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Johnson
`& Johnson.
`• Endo Entities: Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Par
`Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. f/k/a Par
`Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc.
`• Mallinckrodt Entities: Mallinckrodt plc; Mallinckrodt LLC; SpecGx LLC.
`• Co-Conspirator Purdue Entities: Richard S. Sackler; Jonathan D. Sackler;
`Mortimer D.A. Sackler; Kathe A. Sackler; Ilene Sackler Lefcourt; Beverly
`Sackler; Theresa Sackler; David A. Sackler; Rhodes Technologies; Rhodes
`Technologies Inc.; Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P.; Rhodes Pharmaceuticals
`Inc.; Trust for the Benefit of Members of the Raymond Sackler Family; The
`P.F. Laboratories, Inc.
`• Non-Defendant, Co-Conspirator Purdue Entities: Purdue Pharma L.P.;
`Purdue Pharma Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.
`
`DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS
`• Cardinal Health, Inc.
`• AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp.
`• Mckesson Corporation
`
`PHARMACY DEFENDANTS
`• HBC Service Company
`• CVS Health Corporation; CVS Indiana, LLC; CVS Rx Services, Inc.
`• Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc.; Rite Aid of Maryland,
`Inc. d/b/a Rite-Aid Mid-Atlantic Customer Support Center, Inc.
`• Walgreen Co.; Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.; Walgreen Eastern Co.
`• Wal-Mart Inc. f/k/a Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
`• Miami-Luken, Inc.
`• Costco Wholesale Corporation
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`CLAIMS
`
`First Cause of Action – Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. – Opioid
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`Marketing Enterprise (against only Defendants Cephalon Entities, Janssen Entities, Endo Entities,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 4 of 15. PageID #: 477662
`
`and Mallinckrodt Entities (the “RICO Marketing Defendants”).
`
`2.
`
`Second Cause of Action – Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. – Opioid
`
`Supply Chain Enterprise (against only Defendants Cephalon Entities, Endo Entities, Mallinckrodt
`
`Entities, Actavis Entities, McKesson, Cardinal, and AmerisourceBergen (the “RICO Supply Chain
`
`Defendants”).
`
`
`
`D.
`
`1.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Order Defendants to provide for the benefit of the Plaintiff Legal Guardians and the
`
`Putative Class Members ongoing medical monitoring, testing, intervention, provision of caregiver
`
`training and information, and medical referral, all of which are medically necessary for the NAS
`
`Children in their care, and all future medical care reasonably necessary to treat these children. Any
`
`injunctive relief to which Plaintiffs may justly show themselves entitled, including injunctive relief
`
`designed to reduce the incidence of children born with NAS.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Order creation of a Science Panel.
`
`Alternatively, all incidental compensatory damages and medical expenses incurred
`
`by Plaintiff Legal Guardians and the Putative Class Members in connection with their care of the
`
`NAS Children. It is expressly alleged that all compensatory damages sought in the alternative are
`
`incidental to the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs and the Class, and are for those caused by
`
`the in utero exposure to opioids and NAS diagnosis suffered by the NAS Children.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Punitive damages.
`
`Attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff Legal Guardians and the Putative
`
`Class Members.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 5 of 15. PageID #: 477663
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`CLASS 3 – OHIO STATEWIDE CLASS5
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`DEFINITION
`
`Legal Guardians6 of Ohio residents born after March 16, 2000, who were medically
`
`diagnosed with opioid-related NAS7 at or near birth and whose birth mother received a
`
`prescription for opioids or opiates prior to the birth and those opioids or opiates were
`
`manufactured, distributed, or filled by a Defendant or Purdue entity. Excluded from the class are
`
`any infants and children who were treated with opioids after birth, other than for pharmacological
`
`weaning. Also excluded from the class are legal guardianships where the State of Ohio or one of
`
`its political subdivisions, such as a public children services agency, has affirmatively assumed the
`
`duties of “custodian” of the child.
`
`2.
`
`Legal Guardians8 of Ohio residents born after March 16, 2000, who were medically
`
`diagnosed with opioid-related NAS9 at or near birth and whose birth mother received and/or filled
`
`a prescription for opioids or opiates in the 10 months prior to the birth of said infant or child and
`
`those opioids or opiates were manufactured, distributed, or filled by a Defendant or Purdue entity.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`(1) MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS
`• Actavis Entities: Allergan PLC f/k/a Actavis PLC f/k/a Allergan, Inc.;
`Allergan Finance, LLC f/k/a Actavis, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharmaceuticals,
`Inc.; Allergan Sales, LLC; Allergan USA, Inc.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.;
`Warner Chilcott Company, LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson
`Pharma Inc.; Actavis South Atlantic LLC; Actavis Elizabeth LLC; Actavis
`
`5 The Ohio statewide class is sought by putative Class Representatives Michelle Frost and Stephanie
`Howell.
`6 The term “Legal Guardian” is defined at fn. 2.
`7 The term “NAS” is defined at fn. 3.
`8 The term “Legal Guardian” is defined at fn. 2.
`9 The term “NAS” is defined at fn. 3.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 6 of 15. PageID #: 477664
`
`Industries Ltd.; Teva
`
`Mid Atlantic LLC; Actavis Totowa LLC; Actavis LLC; Actavis Kadian
`LLC; Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. f/k/a Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Salt
`Lake City; Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. f/k/a Watson Laboratories, Inc.-
`Florida.
` Teva Pharmaceutical
`• Cephalon Entities:
`Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.
`• Janssen Entities: Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica,
`Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Noramco, Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-
`Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Johnson
`& Johnson.
`• Endo Entities: Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Par
`Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. f/k/a Par
`Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc.
`• Mallinckrodt Entities: Mallinckrodt plc; Mallinckrodt LLC; SpecGx LLC.
`Insys Therapeutics, Inc.
`•
`• Depomed, Inc.
`Indivior, Inc.
`•
`• Co-Conspirator Purdue Entities: Richard S. Sackler; Jonathan D. Sackler;
`Mortimer D.A. Sackler; Kathe A. Sackler; Ilene Sackler Lefcourt; Beverly
`Sackler; Theresa Sackler; David A. Sackler; Rhodes Technologies; Rhodes
`Technologies Inc.; Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P.; Rhodes Pharmaceuticals
`Inc.; Trust for the Benefit of Members of the Raymond Sackler Family; The
`P.F. Laboratories, Inc.
`• Non-Defendant, Co-Conspirator Purdue Entities: Purdue Pharma L.P.;
`Purdue Pharma Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.
`
`DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS
`• Cardinal Health, Inc.
`• AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp.
`• Mckesson Corporation
`• Anda, Inc.
`• H. D. Smith, LLC d/b/a HD Smith f/k/a H. D. Smith Wholesale Drug Co.;
`H. D. Smith Holdings, LLC; H. D. Smith Holding Company
`• Discount Drug Mart, Inc.
`• Prescription Supply, Inc.
`
`(2)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 7 of 15. PageID #: 477665
`
`(3)
`
`
`PHARMACY DEFENDANTS
`• HBC Service Company
`• CVS Health Corporation; CVS Indiana, LLC; CVS Rx Services, Inc.
`• Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc.; Rite Aid of Maryland,
`Inc. d/b/a Rite-Aid Mid-Atlantic Customer Support Center, Inc.
`• Walgreen Co.; Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.; Walgreen Eastern Co.
`• Wal-Mart Inc. f/k/a Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
`• Miami-Luken, Inc.
`• Costco Wholesale Corporation
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`CLAIMS
`
`First Cause of Action – Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. – Opioid
`
`
`
`Marketing Enterprise (against only Defendants Cephalon Entities, Janssen Entities, Endo Entities,
`
`and Mallinckrodt Entities (the “RICO Marketing Defendants”).
`
`2.
`
`Second Cause of Action – Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. – Opioid
`
`Supply Chain Enterprise (against only Defendants Cephalon Entities, Endo Entities, Mallinckrodt
`
`Entities, Actavis Entities, McKesson, Cardinal, and AmerisourceBergen (the “RICO Supply Chain
`
`Defendants”).
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`Third Cause of Action — Negligence.
`
`Fourth Cause of Action — Negligence Per Se.
`
`Fifth Cause of Action — Civil Battery.
`
`Sixth Cause of Action — Civil Conspiracy.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED – See ¶ I.D., supra, which is incorporated by reference.
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 8 of 15. PageID #: 477666
`
`III. CLASS 4 – CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE CLASS10
`
`
`A.
`
`DEFINITION
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Legal Guardians11 of residents born after March 16, 2000, who were medically
`
`diagnosed with opioid-related NAS12 at or near birth and whose birth mother received a
`
`prescription for opioids or opiates prior to the birth and those opioids or opiates were
`
`manufactured, distributed, or filled by a Defendant or Purdue entity. Excluded from the class are
`
`any infants and children who were treated with opioids after birth, other than for pharmacological
`
`weaning. Also excluded from the class are legal guardianships where a political subdivision, such
`
`as a public children services agency, has affirmatively assumed the duties of “custodian” of the
`
`child.
`
`2.
`
`Legal Guardians13 of California residents born after March 16, 2000, who were
`
`medically diagnosed with opioid-related NAS14 at or near birth and whose birth mother received
`
`and/or filled a prescription for opioids or opiates in the 10 months prior to the birth of said infant
`
`or child and those opioids or opiates were manufactured, distributed, or filled by a Defendant or
`
`Purdue entity.
`
`3.
`
`Legal Guardians15 of California residents born after March 16, 2000, who were
`
`medically diagnosed with opioid-related NAS16 at or near birth and whose birth mother received
`
`
`10 The California statewide class is sought by putative Class Representatives Jacqueline Ramirez, Roman
`Ramirez, and Melissa Barnwell.
`11 The term “Legal Guardian” is defined at fn. 2.
`12 The term “NAS” is defined at fn. 3.
`13 The term “Legal Guardian” is defined at fn. 2.
`14 The term “NAS” is defined at fn. 3.
`15 The term “Legal Guardian” is defined at fn. 2.
`16 The term “NAS” is defined at fn. 3.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 9 of 15. PageID #: 477667
`
`a prescription for opioids or opiates prior to the birth and those opioids or opiates were
`
`manufactured, distributed, or filled by a Defendant or Purdue entity.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`DEFENDANTS – See ¶ II.B., supra, which is incorporated by reference.
`
`CLAIMS
`
`First Cause of Action – Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. – Opioid
`
`Marketing Enterprise (against only Defendants Cephalon Entities, Janssen Entities, Endo Entities,
`
`and Mallinckrodt Entities (the “RICO Marketing Defendants”).
`
`2.
`
`Second Cause of Action – Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. – Opioid
`
`Supply Chain Enterprise (against only Defendants Cephalon Entities, Endo Entities, Mallinckrodt
`
`Entities, Actavis Entities, McKesson, Cardinal, and AmerisourceBergen (the “RICO Supply Chain
`
`Defendants”).
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`D.
`
`1.
`
`Third Cause of Action — Negligence.
`
`Fourth Cause of Action — Negligence Per Se.
`
`Fifth Cause of Action — Violations of the Unfair Competition Law.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Order Defendants to provide for the benefit of the Plaintiff Legal Guardians and the
`
`Putative Class Members ongoing medical monitoring, testing, intervention, provision of caregiver
`
`training and information, and medical referral, all of which are medically necessary for the NAS
`
`Children in their care, and all future medical care reasonably necessary to treat these children. Any
`
`injunctive relief to which Plaintiffs may justly show themselves entitled, including injunctive relief
`
`designed to reduce the incidence of children born with NAS.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Order creation of a Science Panel.
`
`Alternatively, all incidental compensatory damages and medical expenses incurred
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 10 of 15. PageID #: 477668
`
`by Plaintiff Legal Guardians and the Putative Class Members in connection with their care of the
`
`NAS Children. It is expressly alleged that all compensatory damages sought in the alternative are
`
`incidental to the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs and the Class, and are for those caused by
`
`the in utero exposure to opioids and NAS diagnosis suffered by the NAS Children.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Disgorgement and other relief pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law.
`
`Punitive damages.
`
`Attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff Legal Guardians and the Putative
`
`Class Members.
`
`IV. ALTERNATIVE SUBCLASSES
`
`
`1.
`
`Legal Guardians17 of United States, Ohio and California residents born after May
`
`9, 2000, who were medically diagnosed with opioid-related “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome”
`
`(“NAS”)18 at or near birth and whose birth mother received a prescription for opioids or opiates
`
`either (1) prior to the birth or (2) ten months prior to the birth and those opioids or opiates were
`
`manufactured or distributed by one or more of the “Cephalon Defendants”;19
`
`2.
`
`Legal Guardians20 of United States, Ohio and California residents born after May
`
`9, 2000, who were medically diagnosed with opioid-related “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome”
`
`(“NAS”)21 at or near birth and whose birth mother received a prescription for opioids or opiates
`
`either (1) prior to the birth or (2) ten months prior to the birth and those opioids or opiates were
`
`
`17 The term “Legal Guardian” is defined at fn. 2.
`18 The term “NAS” is defined at fn. 3.
`19 Defined in the “Manufacturer Defendants” section for those respective political subdivisions.
`20 The term “Legal Guardian” is defined at fn. 2.
`21 The term “NAS” is defined at fn. 3.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 11 of 15. PageID #: 477669
`
`manufactured or distributed by one or more of the “Endo Defendants”;22
`
`3.
`
`Legal Guardians23 of United States, Ohio and California residents born after May
`
`9, 2000, who were medically diagnosed with opioid-related “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome”
`
`(“NAS”)24 at or near birth and whose birth mother received a prescription for opioids or opiates
`
`either (1) prior to the birth or (2) ten months prior to the birth and those opioids or opiates were
`
`manufactured or distributed by one or more of the “Mallinckrodt Defendants”;25
`
`4.
`
`Legal Guardians26 of United States, Ohio and California residents born after May
`
`9, 2000, who were medically diagnosed with opioid-related “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome”
`
`(“NAS”)27 at or near birth and whose birth mother received a prescription for opioids or opiates
`
`either (1) prior to the birth or (2) ten months prior to the birth and those opioids or opiates were
`
`manufactured or distributed by one or more of the “Actavis Defendants”;28
`
`5.
`
`Legal Guardians29 of United States, Ohio and California residents born after May
`
`9, 2000, who were medically diagnosed with opioid-related “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome”
`
`(“NAS”)30 at or near birth and whose birth mother received a prescription for opioids or opiates
`
`either (1) prior to the birth or (2) ten months prior to the birth and those opioids or opiates were
`
`manufactured or distributed by one or more of the “Janssen Defendants”;31
`
`
`22 Defined in the “Manufacturer Defendants” section for those respective political subdivisions.
`23 The term “Legal Guardian” is defined at fn. 2.
`24 The term “NAS” is defined at fn. 3.
`25 Defined in the “Manufacturer Defendants” section for those respective political subdivisions.
`26 The term “Legal Guardian” is defined at fn. 2.
`27 The term “NAS” is defined at fn. 3.
`28 Defined in the “Manufacturer Defendants” section for those respective political subdivisions.
`29 The term “Legal Guardian” is defined at fn. 2.
`30 The term “NAS” is defined at fn. 3.
`31 Defined in the “Manufacturer Defendants” section for those respective political subdivisions.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 12 of 15. PageID #: 477670
`
`f.
`
`Legal Guardians32 of United States, Ohio and California residents born after May
`
`9, 2000, who were medically diagnosed with opioid-related “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome”
`
`(“NAS”)33 at or near birth and whose birth mother received a prescription for opioids or opiates
`
`either (1) prior to the birth or (2) ten months prior to the birth and those opioids or opiates were
`
`manufactured or distributed by one or more Defendant or Purdue entity.
`
`V.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS HAVE SATISFIED ALL REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23
`
`As set forth more fully in the accompanying Consolidated Memorandum of Law, Plaintiffs
`
`have satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a):
`
`•
`
`The members of the classes are so numerous that joinder is impracticable;
`
`• Membership in the classes is ascertainable and based on readily identifiable and
`objective criteria;
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`The claims of the class members involve common questions of law and fact;
`
`The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the other class
`members, and they will otherwise adequately represent the classes and have no
`conflicts of interest; and
`
`The putative class counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the
`classes.
`
`Furthermore, the proposed classes also satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3):
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`The parties opposing the classes have acted or refused to act on grounds generally
`applicable to the class;
`
`Common questions of law and fact predominate over individual issues; and
`
`Class certification is superior to other available means of adjudication.
`
`Rule 23 was designed to facilitate the class-wide adjudication of similar claims and to
`
`achieve economies of time, effort, and expense while promoting uniformity of decision as to all
`
`
`32 The term “Legal Guardian” is defined at fn. 2.
`33 The term “NAS” is defined at fn. 3.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 13 of 15. PageID #: 477671
`
`persons similarly situated. The class action mechanism is not only the superior method to
`
`adjudicate claims such as those alleged here, but it is the only viable method of doing so.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request the certification of their proposed classes.
`
`DATED: January 7, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Marc E. Dann
`Marc E. Dann (0039425)
`Emily C. White (0085662)
`Whitney E. Kaster (0091540)
`DANN LAW
`2728 Euclid Avenue, Suite 300
`Cleveland, OH 44115
`(216) 373-0539
`notices@dannlaw.com
`
`Putative Class Liaison Counsel for Guardians of
`NAS Children
`
`Thomas E. Bilek
`Kelly Cox Bilek
`THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
`700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 227-7720
`tbilek@bileklaw.com
`kbilek@bileklaw.com
`
`Celeste Brustowicz
`Stephen Wussow
`COOPER LAW FIRM
`1525 Religious Street
`New Orleans, LA 70130
`Telephone: 504-399-0009
`Facsimile: 504-309-6989
`Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com
`
`Scott R. Bickford
`Spencer R. Doody
`MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
`338 Lafayette Street
`New Orleans, LA 70130
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 14 of 15. PageID #: 477672
`
`Telephone: 504-581-9065
`Facsimile: 504-581-7635
`Email: srb@mbfirm.com
`
`Putative Class Co-Lead Counsel for Guardians of
`NAS Children
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3066 Filed: 01/07/20 15 of 15. PageID #: 477673
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`/s/ Marc E. Dann
`Marc E. Dann (0039425)
`
`I certify that on January 7, 2020 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was automatically
`served on the parties registered with the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`