Using Artificial Classes To Settle Mass Litigation: What Ginsburg Knew

Walter OlsonLast week theSixth Circuit rejected a federal judge ’s novel certification of an unusual “negotiating class” aimed at promoting a global settlement between opiate manufacturers and cities and counties around the country that have sued them. The designated class would have included thousands of cities and counties around the country that have not filed suit, and the way in which it would have handled their legal interests was assailed from many directions as lacking in fairness. Last week ’s ruling triumphantly vindicates the prescience of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the modern Court’s most influential proceduralist voice, whose opinion for the Court inAmchem Products v.Windsor (1997) laid out the path correctly followed by the Sixth Circuit majority. (Judge Eric Clay wrote the opinion, joined by Judge David McKeague; Judge Karen Moore dissented.)From my point of view, the opiates litigation demanding recoupment of public funds spent on addiction should never have been filed at all, and its proper settlement value would be $0.00. (Morehere, here,here, etc.) It ’s not clear the courts will rule that way, however, and many legal observers expect that, as with many mass tort actions, this one will eventuate in a settlement. Such a settlement would extract money from drug company investors (as well as bystanders such as pain patients who may pay more for medication in future) and redistribute it to mayors, county...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs