County of Calaveras v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. ( 2022 )

—e—e———e mE IIE RINNE IRI RII SIS ISIGDSEIIOSQ' ESI EIR IIE IEEE ES ESI EE II IID UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE CONSULTANT LITIGATION MDL No. 2996 (SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE) CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO —33) On June 7, 2021, the Panel transferred 17 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See 543 F.Supp.3d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2021). Since that time, 114 additional action(s) have been transferred to the Northern District of California. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer. It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Breyer. Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the Northern District of California for the reasons stated in the order of June 7, 2021, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. Inasmuch as no objection is FOR THE PANEL: pending at this time, the LL Qe stay is lifted. Nov 09, 2022 ( “vane SHES John W. Nichols MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Clerk of the Panel | hereby certify that the annexed instrument is a true and correct copy of the original on file in my office. ATTEST: MARK B. BUSBY Clerk, U.S. District Court Northem District of Califomia by: Edigabeth C cnn Deputy Clerk ——e——— mm DEINE IRI RII SIS ISIGDSEISIOSQ' DIES EIR IIE IEEE ES ESI EE II ID IN RE: MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE CONSULTANT LITIGATION MDL No. 2996 SCHEDULE CTO-33 — TAG-ALONG ACTIONS DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION CALIFORNIA EASTERN CAE 1 22-01340 County of Inyo et al v. McKinsey and Company, INC. CAE 1 22-01370 County of Calaveras, et al. v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. CAE 1 22-01379 County of Madera, et al v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. CAE 2 22-01876 County of El Dorado et al v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. CAE 2 22—01905 County of Trinity et al,. v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. CAE 2 22-01912 County of Butte et al v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. CAE 2 22-01917 County of Amador et al v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CAS 3 22-01624 County of San Diego et al v. Mckinsey and Company, Inc. CAS 3 22-01660 County of Imperial et al v. Mckinsey and Company, Inc. CAS 3 22-01661 City of Chula Vista et al v. Mckinsey and Company, Inc. OREGON OR 3 22-01648 City of Portland, Oregon v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.