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
- Mass Litigation Panel (created by Trial Court Rule 26) oversees multi‑party mass torts; it was assigned opioid‑related public nuisance cases involving many parties and complex claims.
- The Panel scheduled a bench trial for respondents’ public nuisance claims; petitioners (large drug manufacturers/distributors) sought extraordinary relief challenging that procedure.
- Petitioners argued respondents seek legal damages (monetary abatement) entitling them to jury trials on common issues and sought leave to file third‑party fault notices under W. Va. Code § 55‑7‑13d.
- The state supreme court majority required that issues common to legal and equitable claims be tried to a jury before a bench trial on equitable public nuisance claims and suggested reconsideration of petitioners’ motions about third‑party fault notices.
- Justice Wooton concurred that the Panel’s decision to hold a bench trial did not warrant prohibition but dissented from the majority’s intrusion into the Panel’s procedural authority and from ordering a jury‑first mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of public nuisance (equity vs law) | Public nuisance is equitable and triable to the court (bench trial). | Petitioners say abatement damages are monetary/legal, so jury right applies. | Wooton: Public nuisance is historically equitable; damages here are at least plausibly equitable and plaintiffs should be required to clarify damages via discovery. |
| Characterization of damages (abatement as legal damages) | Respondents: damages sought are abatement/remedial costs (equitable). | Petitioners: monetary abatement is legal relief requiring jury trial. | Wooton: Majority errs in treating this as resolved now; discovery needed to separate equitable relief from legal claims. |
| Order of trial when issues overlap (jury first?) | Respondents: bench can decide equitable public nuisance; common issues can be managed by Panel. | Petitioners: common factual/legal issues must be submitted to a jury before court decides equitable issues. | Wooton: Opposes majority’s blanket mandate for a jury‑first protocol; would defer to the Panel’s Rule 26 authority and case‑management discretion. |
| Panel authority and interlocutory relief (third‑party fault notices; writs) | Respondents: Panel should be allowed flexible procedures under Rule 26; early intervention is premature. | Petitioners: Court should constrain Panel and protect jury rights, and remand to reconsider third‑party fault notices. | Wooton: Court should not strip Panel of its Rule 26 powers or invite repeated extraordinary writs; denies that prohibition was warranted but dissents from broader intrusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Tobacco Litig., 218 W. Va. 301 (2005) (mass‑tort management requires flexibility for trial courts)
- State ex rel. Mobil Corp. v. Gaughan, 211 W. Va. 106 (2002) (trial courts need leeway to manage complex cases)
- Weatherholt v. Weatherholt, 234 W. Va. 722 (2015) (public nuisance is equitable and triable without a jury)
- Town of Weston v. Ralston, 48 W. Va. 170 (1900) (historical recognition that public nuisance is equitable)
- W. Va. Hum. Rts. Comm'n v. Tenpin Lounge, Inc., 158 W. Va. 349 (1975) (practice of trying legal issues to a jury and equitable issues to the court)
- Sticklen v. Kittle, 168 W. Va. 147 (1981) (liberal discovery standards to clarify claims)
- Davis v. Settle, 43 W. Va. 17 (1896) (constitutional jury right does not extend to matters traditionally in equity)