State of West Virginia ex rel. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp. v. Judge Moats, and State of West Virginia ex rel. Johnson & Johnson v. Judge Moats
20-0694 and 20-0751
| W. Va. | Jun 11, 2021Background
- Dozens of opioid-related suits by West Virginia (state), counties, municipalities, and hospitals were consolidated before a seven-judge Mass Litigation Panel (the Opioid Litigation).
- The Panel ordered a Phase I bench trial (non-jury) limited to public-nuisance liability (leaving remedies and other claims for later), reasoning public nuisance and abatement are equitable.
- Defendants (manufacturers/distributors/etc.) objected: they filed motions challenging the bench trial as violating their jury-trial rights and filed notices of nonparty fault under the 2015 comparative-fault amendments; Plaintiffs moved to strike those notices.
- The Panel struck certain nonparty-fault notices and reaffirmed the non-jury Phase I plan; it found the 2015 Act inapplicable because the nuisance claims were equitable and did not seek compensatory damages.
- Defendants petitioned this Court for writs of prohibition; the Supreme Court consolidated petitions and reviewed whether extraordinary relief was warranted to protect jury rights and the statutory allocation regime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Nature of public-nuisance claims (legal v. equitable) | Nuisance/abatement are equitable; therefore no jury right and 2015 Act (damages allocation) does not apply | Public nuisance seeks monetary abatement and damages; thus it is a legal claim triggering jury right and the 2015 Act | Court: mixed; given conflicting authority, Panel’s conclusion that nuisance claims are equitable is not clearly erroneous for prohibition purposes — writ denied on this ground |
| 2) Applicability of the 2015 comparative-fault amendments to nuisance claims | 2015 Act inapplicable because plaintiffs seek equitable abatement or claims accrued before Act | 2015 Act applies because plaintiffs seek monetary relief (compensatory damages) and defendants properly noticed nonparty fault | Court: reasonable dispute exists; not a clear legal error to grant extraordinary relief — writ denied on this ground (Pet. No. 20-0751 denied; portions of 20-0694 denied) |
| 3) Whether Phase I bench trial can proceed when legal claims overlap with equitable nuisance liability (order of trial) | Phase I bench trial is a valid case-management tool in complex mass litigation; legal claims can be tried later | Overlap of common issues means a jury must decide the common issues first (Tenpin Lounge/Bishop/Barron & Holtzoff principle); bench trial now would extinguish jury rights via collateral estoppel/res judicata | Court: Panel clearly erred by not protecting defendants’ right to have a jury decide issues common to legal claims; extraordinary relief granted in part to require jury-first determination of common issues (Pet. No. 20-0694 granted in part) |
| 4) Appropriateness of prohibition as extraordinary remedy | Panel’s mass-litigation management and discretionary rulings should not be disturbed; appeals available | Jury right is fundamental and may be lost if equitable determination proceeds first; prohibition warranted to prevent uncorrectable prejudice | Court: prohibition is limited and appropriate only to preserve jury determination of overlapping issues; otherwise prohibition is disfavored (writs denied in part, granted narrowly in part) |
Key Cases Cited
- West Virginia Human Rights Comm’n v. Tenpin Lounge, Inc., 158 W. Va. 349 (W. Va. 1975) (where legal and equitable claims overlap, jury must first decide issues common to both)
- Camden-Clark Mem. Hosp. Corp. v. Turner, 212 W. Va. 752 (W. Va. 2002) (discussion of trial sequencing where injunction and legal claims interact)
- Realmark Dev., Inc. v. Ranson, 214 W. Va. 161 (W. Va. 2003) (legal/equitable classification focuses on remedies, with greater weight to relief sought)
- State ex rel. Peacher v. Sencindiver, 160 W. Va. 314 (W. Va. 1977) (prohibition issues standard: writ issues only when court lacks jurisdiction or exceeds legitimate powers)
- State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W. Va. 12 (W. Va. 1996) (factors for discretionary writ of prohibition; clear legal error is heavily weighted)
- Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1959) (Supreme Court precedent on jury trial priority where legal and equitable claims intersect)