Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 1 of 81. PageID #: 503445
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`MDL No. 2804
`
`Case No. 17-md-2804
`
`Judge Dan Aaron Polster
`
`
`
`IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE
`LITIGATION
`
`This document relates to:
`
`Jennifer Artz, et al. v. Endo Health Solutions Inc., et al.
`Case No. 1:19-OP-45459
`
`Michelle Frost v. Endo Health Solutions Inc. et al.
`Case No. 1:18-OP-46327
`
`Salmons v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.1
`Case No. 1:18-OP-45268
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NAS PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Defendants list Salmons here because it is included in the caption of Plaintiffs’ Motion, even
`though no plaintiff in Salmons is proposed as a representative of any class. The fourth case
`included in the caption to Plaintiffs’ motion, Flanagan v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., has since been
`dismissed.
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 2 of 81. PageID #: 503446
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome .......................................................................................... 5
`
`The Proposed Classes and Class Representatives ............................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Jacqueline Ramirez, Birth Mother and Legal Guardian of R.R. ............................. 9
`
`Melissa Barnwell, Birth Mother and Legal Guardian of C.G. and E.G. ............... 11
`
`Erin Doyle, Birth Mother of D.F. ......................................................................... 13
`
`Ashley Poe, Birth Mother and Legal Guardian of P.P.R.P. .................................. 15
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................................... 17
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 19
`
`I.
`
`The Individualized Nature of Plaintiffs’ Personal Injury Claims Prevent Them
`From Satisfying the Requirements of Rule 23(a). ............................................................ 19
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Failed to Demonstrate Typicality. ............................................... 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Typicality Is Absent Because the Proposed Class Representatives
`Are Not Even Class Members................................................................... 20
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Demonstrated Typicality Because Their
`Claims Pose Distinct Factual and Legal Questions. ................................. 24
`
`Typicality Cannot Be Established for Defendants’ Conduct (or
`Lack of Conduct) With Respect to Individual Class Members. ............... 31
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Commonality. ............................................................ 34
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid Their Obligation to Demonstrate Typicality and
`Commonality by Citing This Court’s Negotiation Class Decision and the
`Potential Use of Aggregate Proof. ........................................................................ 36
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Failed To Demonstrate Adequacy. .............................................. 37
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 3 of 81. PageID #: 503447
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The Claims of the Proposed Class Representatives Will Require
`Substantial Individual Examination. ......................................................... 38
`
`Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Represent a Class for RICO Claims. ............. 39
`
`No Nationwide RICO Class Can Be Certified Against Defendants
`Against Whom Plaintiffs Have Not Asserted Such Claims. ..................... 40
`
`The Proposed Class Representatives Do Not Have Claims Against
`All Defendants. ......................................................................................... 41
`
`Members of the Proposed Classes Have Divergent Interests. .................. 42
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Also Fail to Satisfy Rule 23(b). ......................................................................... 45
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims May Be Considered for Certification Only Under Rule
`23(b)(3) Because They Request Significant Monetary Relief. ............................. 45
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Classes Do Not Satisfy Rule 23(b)(3). ................................. 47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Demonstrate Predominance. .......................................... 47
`
`A Class Action Is Not The Superior Method For Adjudicating
`These Claims. ............................................................................................ 53
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Meet the Requirements for Certification Under Rule
`23(b)(2). ................................................................................................................ 57
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot Show that Any Defendant Has Acted or Refused
`to Act on Grounds That Apply Generally to the Class. ............................ 57
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Classes Lack Cohesion. ............................................ 57
`
`Considerations of Equity Weigh Against Certification Under
`23(b)(2). .................................................................................................... 59
`
`III.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Failed to Provide Legally Sufficient Class Definitions. .......................... 60
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 4 of 81. PageID #: 503448
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`6803 Boulevard E., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`17 F. Supp. 3d 427 (D.N.J. 2014) ............................................................................................42
`
`Aaron v. Durrani,
`2014 WL 996471 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 13, 2014) ..........................................................................40
`
`Abrams v. Bute,
`27 N.Y.S.3d 58 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) ...................................................................................28
`
`Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest.,
`570 U.S. 228 (2013) .................................................................................................................17
`
`In re Am. Med. Sys.,
`75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................20, 21, 47, 49
`
`Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Arnett v. Mong,
`65 N.E.3d 72 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) .........................................................................................48
`
`Baker v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.,
`533 Fed. App’x 509 (6th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................28
`
`Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
`161 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 1998).....................................................................................................19
`
`Barraza v. C.R. Bard Inc.,
`322 F.R.D. 369 (D. Ariz. 2017) ...................................................................................19, 46, 57
`
`Barrette v. Lopez,
`725 N.E.2d 314 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999) .....................................................................................48
`
`Beach v. Healthways, Inc.,
`2009 WL 3245393 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2009) ........................................................................38
`
`Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc.,
`511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007) .......................................................................................18, 20, 43
`
`Berisford v. Sells,
`331 N.E.2d 408 (Ohio 1975) ...................................................................................................48
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 5 of 81. PageID #: 503449
`
`Bridging Communities Inc. v. Top Flite Fin. Inc.,
`843 F.3d 1119 (6th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................18
`
`Bromley v. Mich. Educ. Ass’n-NEA,
`178 F.R.D. 148 (E.D. Mich. 1998) ..........................................................................................41
`
`Burkhead v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co.,
`250 F.R.D. 287 (W.D. Ky. 2008).............................................................................................44
`
`In re Carrie W.,
`110 Cal. App. 4th 746 (2003) ..................................................................................................64
`
`Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
`84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) ...............................................................................................53, 54
`
`Chavers v. Gatke Corp.,
`107 Cal. App. 4th 606 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) ............................................................................52
`
`Clemons v. Norton Healthcare Inc. Ret. Plan,
`890 F.3d 254 (6th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................18
`
`Cole v. City of Memphis,
`839 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................62
`
`Coleman v. GMAC,
`296 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................59
`
`Colley v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`2016 WL 5791658 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 4, 2016) .................................................................1, 19, 38
`
`Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
`569 U.S. 27 (2013) ...................................................................................................................47
`
`Creech v. Emerson Elec. Co.,
`2019 WL 1723716 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 18, 2019) ........................................................................58
`
`DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc.,
`828 P.2d 140 (Cal. 1992) .........................................................................................................51
`
`Dash v. FirstPlus Home Loan Owner Tr. 1996-2,
`248 F. Supp. 2d 489 (M.D.N.C. 2003) ....................................................................................41
`
`Davis-Miller v. Automobile Club of S. Cal.,
`134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) ....................................................................52
`
`Doane v. Givaudan Flavors Corp.,
`919 N.E.2d 290 (Oh. Ct. App. 2009) .......................................................................................52
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 6 of 81. PageID #: 503450
`
`Doctors’ Co. v. Superior Court,
`775 P.2d 508 (Cal. 1989) .........................................................................................................53
`
`Drake v. B.F. Goodrich Co.,
`782 F.2d 638 (6th Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................................40
`
`Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin,
`417 U.S. 156 (1974) .................................................................................................................54
`
`Fallick v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,
`162 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................39
`
`Ferris v. Gatke Corp.,
`107 Cal. App. 4th 1211 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) ..........................................................................52
`
`Foister v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
`2002 WL 1008608 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 26, 2002) ..........................................................................20
`
`In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`248 F.R.D. 389 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) .............................................................................................19
`
`Fried v. Sungard Recovery Serv., Inc.,
`900 F. Supp. 758 (E.D. Pa. 1995) ......................................................................................29, 40
`
`Garrett v. City of Hamtramck,
`503 F.2d 1236 (6th Cir. 1974) .................................................................................................21
`
`Gartin v. S & M NuTec LLC,
`245 F.R.D. 429 (C.D. Cal. 2007) .............................................................................................50
`
`Gawry v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et. al.,
`640 F. Supp. 2d 942 (N.D. Ohio 2009) ....................................................................................39
`
`Gevedon v. Purdue Pharma,
`212 F.R.D. 333 (E.D. Ky. 2002) ..............................................................................................64
`
`Givens v. Van Devere, Inc.,
`2012 WL 4092738 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 17, 2012) .................................................................55, 60
`
`Givens v. Van Devere, Inc.,
`2012 WL 4092803 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2012) ........................................................................55
`
`Gooch v. Life Inv’rs Ins. Co. of Am.,
`672 F.3d 402 (6th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................19, 44
`
`Gucwa v. Lawley,
`731 F. App’x 408 (6th Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................29, 39
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 7 of 81. PageID #: 503451
`
`Guillot v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc.,
`2013 WL 4508003 (E.D. La. Aug. 22, 2013) ..........................................................................47
`
`Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.,
`573 U.S. 258 (2014) ...........................................................................................................17, 22
`
`Harris v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.,
`218 F.R.D. 590 (S.D. Ohio 2003) ......................................................................................56, 59
`
`Holmes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp.,
`503 U.S. 258 (1992) .................................................................................................................48
`
`Houser v. Pritzker,
`28 F. Supp. 3d 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ........................................................................................58
`
`I.B. by & through Bohannon v. Facebook, Inc.,
`82 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .....................................................................................61
`
`Jackson v. Sedgwick, Inc.,
`731 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................39
`
`Johnson v. Midland Credit Mgmt. Inc.,
`2008 WL 11506470 (N.D. Ohio June 24, 2008) ......................................................................61
`
`Jones v. Allercare, Inc.,
`203 F.R.D. 290 (N.D. Ohio 2001) .....................................................................................19, 54
`
`Kurczi v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`160 F.R.D. 667 (N.D. Ohio 1995) ...........................................................................................55
`
`Lawyers Title Co., LLC v. Kingdom Title Sols., Inc.,
`592 F. App’x 345 (6th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................48
`
`Leib v. Rex Energy Operating Corp.,
`2008 WL 5377792 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 19, 2008)............................................................................57
`
`Little v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`691 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................................60
`
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court,
`63 P.3d 913 (Cal. 2003) ...........................................................................................................28
`
`Macy v. GS Servs. Ltd. P’ship,
`897 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................17
`
`Metro-North Commuter R. Co.. v. Buckley,
`521 U.S. 424 (1997) ...........................................................................................................40, 59
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 8 of 81. PageID #: 503452
`
`Miller v. Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P.,
`2007 WL 1295824 (S.D. Ill. May 1, 2007) ........................................................................55, 56
`
`Miller v. Pac. Shore Funding,
`224 F. Supp. 2d 977 (D. Md. 2002) .........................................................................................41
`
`Minarik v. Nagy,
`8 Ohio App. 2d 194, 193 N.E.2d 280 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963) ...................................................52
`
`Mull v. All. Mortg. Banking Corp.,
`219 F. Supp. 2d 895 (W.D. Tenn. 2002) ......................................................................31, 41, 42
`
`In re: Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig.,
`2020 WL 5701916 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2020) ...............................................................18, 36, 37
`
`In re National Prescription Opiate Litig.,
`452 F. Supp. 3d 745 (N.D. Ohio 2020) ....................................................................................40
`
`Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Haddock,
`460 F. App’x 26 (2d Cir. 2017) ...............................................................................................45
`
`Newton v. S. Wood Piedmont Co.,
`163 F.R.D. 625 (S.D. Ga. 1995) ..............................................................................................64
`
`Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.,
`527 U.S. 815 (1999) .....................................................................................................38, 43, 44
`
`Peredia v. HR Mobile Servs., Inc.,
`25 Cal. App. 5th 680 (2018) ....................................................................................................48
`
`Pilgrim v. Univ. Health Card, LLC,
`660 F.3d 943 (6th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................28
`
`Pipefitters Local 636 Ins. Fund v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich.,
`654 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................55
`
`Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.,
`863 P.2d 795 (Cal. 1993) ...................................................................................................27, 36
`
`In re Propulsid Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`208 F.R.D. 133 (E.D. La. 2002) ...............................................................................................56
`
`Rader v. Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc.,
`276 F.R.D. 524 (D. Nev. 2011)................................................................................................19
`
`Rattray v. Woodbury Cty.,
`253 F.R.D. 444 (N.D. Iowa 2008) .....................................................................................56, 57
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 9 of 81. PageID #: 503453
`
`Rega v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,
`2012 WL 5207559 (N.D. Ohio. Oct. 22, 2012) .......................................................................21
`
`Rhodes v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.,
`253 F.R.D. 365 (S.D. W.Va. 2008)..........................................................................................58
`
`In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.,
`51 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir. 1995) .............................................................................................53, 54
`
`Rikos v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`799 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................18
`
`Romberio v. Unumprovident Corp.,
`385 F. App’x 423 (6th Cir. 2009) ..........................................................................19, 58, 63, 64
`
`Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. ASD Specialty Healthcare, Inc.,
`863 F.3d 460 (6th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................17, 63, 64, 65
`
`Schwaller v. Maguire,
`2003-Ohio-6917 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2003) .....................................................................50
`
`Shepherd v. Vintage Pharms., LLC,
`310 F.R.D. 691 (N.D. Ga. 2015) ..............................................................................................19
`
`In re Skelaxin (Metaxalone) Antitrust Litig.,
`299 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Tenn. 2014) ...........................................................................................44
`
`Spates v. Dameron Hosp. Ass’n,
`114 Cal. App. 4th 208 (2003) ..................................................................................................48
`
`Sprague v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998) .......................................................................................20, 26, 30
`
`In re St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`425 F.3d 1116 (8th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................58
`
`Stanich v. Travelers Indem. Co.,
`249 F.R.D. 506 (N.D. Ohio 2008) ...........................................................................................38
`
`Stewart v. Cheek & Zeehandelar, LLP,
`252 F.R.D. 387 (S.D. Ohio 2008) ............................................................................................63
`
`Sutowski v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`696 N.E.2d 187 (Ohio 1998) ...................................................................................................50
`
`Svenson v. Google, Inc.,
`2015 WL 1503429 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2015) ...........................................................................48
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 10 of 81. PageID #: 503454
`
`Sweet v. Pfizer,
`232 F.R.D. 360 (C.D. Cal. 2005) .............................................................................................30
`
`Thompson v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
`189 F.R.D. 544 (D. Minn. 1999)..............................................................................................45
`
`Thompson v. Bd. of Educ. of Romeo Cmty. Sch.,
`709 F.2d 1200 (6th Cir. 1983) ...........................................................................................41, 42
`
`Treviso v. Nat’l Football Mus., Inc.,
`2018 WL 4608197 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 25, 2018) ........................................................................20
`
`Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo,
`136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) .............................................................................................................47
`
`UFCW Local 1776 v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`620 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2010).....................................................................................................49
`
`Vassalle v. Midland Funding LLC,
`708 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................38
`
`Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) ...............................................................................................55
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Wall v. Sunoco, Inc.,
`211 F.R.D. 272 (M.D. Pa. 2002) ..............................................................................................43
`
`In re Welding Fume Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`245 F.R.D. 279 (N.D. Ohio 2007) ................................................................................... passim
`
`Wethington v. Purdue Pharma LP,
`218 F.R.D. 577 (S.D. Ohio 2003) ......................................................................................20, 49
`
`In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................35
`
`Young v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,
`693 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................21, 60
`
`Zehentbauer Family Land LP v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C.,
`2018 WL 3496089 (N.D. Ohio July 20, 2018) ........................................................................24
`
`Zehentbauer Family Land, LP v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C.,
`935 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................17
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 11 of 81. PageID #: 503455
`
`Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc.,
`253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.), modified, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001) ........................................46
`
`Rules and Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1407 ............................................................................................................................36
`
`RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. ............................................................................................. passim
`
`Cal. Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 ...................................8, 18, 51, 52
`
`Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.23 .............................................................................................................51
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Manual For Complex Litig. Third § 21.213 ..................................................................................55
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 12 of 81. PageID #: 503456
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ efforts to suggest otherwise, these are classic personal injury
`
`claims: Plaintiffs assert that their children suffered personal injury in the form of opioid-related
`
`neonatal abstinence syndrome because the birth mothers used prescription opioid medications,
`
`and they seek to hold liable companies that manufactured and distributed such medications.2
`
`It is well established that personal injury claims are almost never suitable for class
`
`treatment. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997); Colley v. Procter &
`
`Gamble Co., 2016 WL 5791658, at *10 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 4, 2016). Such claims do not present the
`
`common issues and cohesive interests that would permit them to be adjudicated based on
`
`common evidence. Claims based on physical harms nearly always require individual scrutiny of
`
`each plaintiff’s circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 advisory committee’s notes. The personal
`
`injury claims alleged here are particularly unsuitable for class treatment because each class
`
`member’s claims rest on different facts and each has claims against at most a subset of
`
`defendants.
`
`Neonatal abstinence syndrome (“NAS”) is an umbrella term for a set of clinical
`
`symptoms that manifest shortly after birth in some infants who were exposed to certain
`
`substances during their mothers’ pregnancies. It is a short-term syndrome—most infants
`
`diagnosed with NAS at birth recover quickly and display no subsequent ill-effects. Plaintiffs’
`
`claims here rest on the proposition that some infants diagnosed with NAS as a result of in utero
`
`exposure to opioids may suffer long-term physical injuries that manifest later.
`
`
`
`2 Several defendants named in this litigation are not subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction.
`This opposition is filed subject to and without waiving all defenses, including but not limited to
`lack of personal jurisdiction, failure of service of process, and ineffective service of process.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 13 of 81. PageID #: 503457
`
`Unlike a municipal plaintiff in this MDL, the claims of an NAS plaintiff cannot rest on
`
`alleged aggregate impacts of the actions of all defendants on an entire community; each claim
`
`necessarily turns on the specific circumstances of a particular child, including the identity and
`
`source of the medications the child’s mother consumed and the impact, if any, of those
`
`medications on that child. As Plaintiffs’ motion concedes, proof of each plaintiff’s claims
`
`requires more than a general diagnosis of NAS, since many substances, including alcohol,
`
`tobacco, and non-opioid medications, can cause NAS. Plaintiffs seek certification of various
`
`classes of guardians of children who were diagnosed with “opioid-related” NAS at or near birth
`
`and whose birth mothers received, before their births, a prescription for opioids manufactured or
`
`distributed by one or more Defendants.
`
`To establish class membership and to prove his or her claim, each putative class member
`
`would need to provide individualized evidence to demonstrate, inter alia:
`
` That the alleged class member was the legal guardian of the child with respect to
`whom the claim is made;
`
` That the child was diagnosed with opioid-related NAS at or near birth;
`
` That the NAS was caused by prenatal exposure to opioids rather than by other
`substances the birth mother consumed;
`
` That each defendant manufactured and/or supplied prescription opioids consumed by
`that particular birth mother and had a duty to act in a way that would have prevented
`her from consuming those medications;
`
` That each defendant breached that duty through its particular conduct with respect to
`that birth mother;
`
` That the breach of each defendant’s duty caused the birth mother to take opioids
`during pregnancy when she would not have otherwise done so;
`
` That the child’s prenatal exposure to opioids caused specific harm to the child, such
`as an actual physical injury (beyond the short-lasting NAS symptoms) or an increased
`long-term risk of specific injuries compared to the child’s background risk for those
`injuries; and
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 14 of 81. PageID #: 503458
`
` That the specific relief the class member seeks (e.g., medical monitoring for specific
`conditions or compensatory damages for specific injuries) is warranted.
`
`These individual issues, which permeate every element of the Rule 23 analysis, prevent Plaintiffs
`
`from meeting their burden of demonstrating that each of their proposed classes satisfies the
`
`requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), much less the additional requirements of
`
`Rule 23(b). Indeed, Plaintiffs’ showing under Rule 23(a) is so plainly deficient that it should not
`
`be necessary for the Court even to address Rule 23(b).
`
`To begin with, Plaintiffs’ proposed representatives are neither typical nor adequate as
`
`required under Rule 23(a)(3) and (4). In fact, the proposed class representatives are not even
`
`members of the proposed class, as the evidentiary record does not show that their children
`
`received “opioid-related NAS diagnoses” at or near birth. At best, the existence of such
`
`diagnoses for these Plaintiffs will be disputed questions that can be resolved only through
`
`plaintiff-specific evidence. Further intensive individualized analysis will be needed to evaluate
`
`the other elements of each plaintiff’s claims. This alone precludes class certification.
`
`Plaintiffs have also failed to establish the existence of common issues, as required by
`
`Rule 23(a)(2). A question is “common” for purposes of Rule 23(a) only if (1) it must be
`
`answered in order to resolve the claims of substantially all class members and (2) it can be
`
`answered for all class members “in one stroke” with common evidence. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
`
`Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349-50 (2011). Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that any element of their
`
`claims (including those listed above) presents an issue common to the entire class, much less that
`
`any such issues can be resolved “in one stroke” through common evidence.
`
`Even if Plaintiffs could satisfy Rule 23(a), class certification would still be inappropriate,
`
`as they cannot satisfy the further requirements of Rule 23(b). The Supreme Court has made clear
`
`that any class seeking significant monetary relief, as Plaintiffs do here, may be certified only
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 3523 Filed: 10/09/20 15 of 81. PageID #: 503459
`
`under Rule 23(b)(3). Id. at 360. Plaintiffs have failed to show that common questions
`
`predominate, as Rule 23(b)(3) requires; individualized analysis would