City of Chico, California v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION FILED Dec 01, 2022 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE: MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE CONSULTANT LITIGATION MDL No. 2996 (SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE) CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO —35) 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, 132 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. Tosmeh oclion| FOR THE PANEL: nasmuch as no objection is covisitied the LL A te - □□ CLERK'S OFFICE BeAL PEER John W. Nichols 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 Northern District of California Deputy Clerk Date: —] 1/29/2022 IN RE: MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE CONSULTANT LITIGATION MDL No. 2996 SCHEDULE CTO−35 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION ALABAMA NORTHERN ALN 6 22−01384 Winston County, Alabama v. McKinsey and Company Inc ALABAMA SOUTHERN The City of Gulf Shores, Alabama v. McKinsey and ALS 1 22−00432 Company, Inc. CALIFORNIA EASTERN CAE 2 22−01999 City of Chico, California v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. MARYLAND Baltimore County, Maryland v. McKinsey and Company, MD 1 22−02842 Inc. Anne Arundel County, Maryland v. McKinsey and Company, MD 1 22−02916 Inc. MD 8 22−02773 City of Bowie, Maryland v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. NEW YORK SOUTHERN NYS 7 22−ap-07044 Alma, Georgia et al v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. et al Bayonne, New Jersey et al v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. et NYS 7 22−ap-07045 al NORTH DAKOTA ND 3 22−00190 Cass County v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. WASHINGTON WESTERN WAW 2 22−01544 City of Seattle v. McKinsey & Co Inc et al WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN WVS 2 22−00471 S. U. et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al Opposed 11/28/2022 WVS 2 22−00472 J. A. H. et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al Opposed 11/28/2022 WVS 2 22−00478 D.R.E. et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al Opposed 11/28/2022 WVS 2 22−00479 K. B. et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al Opposed 11/28/2022 WVS 2 22−00480 A.B.F. et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al Opposed 11/28/2022 WVS 2 22−00481 M.B. et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al Opposed 11/28/2022 WVS 2 22−00482 A.S.A. et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al WVS 2 22−00483 M.B. et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al Opposed 11/28/2022 WVS 2 22−00484 M.E. B. et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al Opposed 11/28/2022 WVS 2 22−00485 M.B. et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al Opposed 11/28/2022 WVS 2 22−00487 A. S. A. et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al Opposed 11/28/2022