Close Menu
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Return to Fordham Law School
    X (Twitter) Facebook LinkedIn Instagram RSS
    Fordham Law News
    • Home
    • Law School News
    • In the News
    • Fordham Lawyer
    • Insider
      • Announcements
      • Class Notes
      • In Memoriam
    • For the Media
      • Media Contacts
    • News by Topic
      • Business and Financial Law
      • Clinics
      • Intellectual Property and Information Law
      • International and Human Rights Law
      • Legal Ethics and Professional Practice
      • National Security
      • Public Interest and Service
    Return to Fordham Law School
    X (Twitter) Facebook LinkedIn Instagram RSS
    Fordham Law News
    You are at:Home»Faculty»U.S. Judge Refuses to Disqualify Himself from Opioid Litigation

    U.S. Judge Refuses to Disqualify Himself from Opioid Litigation

    0
    By Newsroom on September 26, 2019 Faculty, In the News

    A Reuters article quoted Professor Howard Erichson about the ruling by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster to reject the request that he disqualify himself from a pending nationwide opioid case.

    The U.S. judge overseeing nationwide opioid litigation on Thursday rejected a request by several big pharmacy chains and drug distributors to disqualify himself because he appeared to be biased against them and pressed too hard for a costly settlement.

    Calling the opioid crisis “one of the greatest tragedies of our time,” U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in Cleveland admitted he had been “very active” in encouraging a settlement, but said he was “confident that no reasonable person can legitimately question my impartiality.”

    Companies that sought Polster’s recusal included retailers CVS Health Corp (CVS.N), Rite Aid Corp (RAD.N), Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc (WBA.O) and Walmart Inc (WMT.N), and distributors AmerisourceBergen Corp (ABC.N), Cardinal Health Inc (CAH.N), Henry Schein Inc (HSIC.O) and McKesson Corp (MCK.N).
    …
    Legal experts said Polster’s decision was not a surprise.

    “After nearly two years of litigation, and on the eve of trial, the defendants decided they didn’t want the judge because they didn’t get favorable rulings,” said Howard Erichson, a Fordham University law professor specializing in mass litigation and legal ethics. “That doesn’t work.”

    Lawyers representing the municipalities said in a joint statement: “We are gratified the court has powerfully rejected this last-ditch effort to derail the upcoming trial, which cast unfair and undeserved aspersions on the court.”

    Read full article.

     

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email

    Related Posts

    Dan’s Papers: Prof. Jerry Goldfeder on How Lawyers are Becoming Bigger Players in Elections

    Dan’s Papers: Prof. Jerry Goldfeder on Voters Being Urged to Change Registration to Vote in Mayoral Election

    Above the Law: Prof. Thomas Lee on the Validity of Justice Department’s Misconduct Complaint Against U.S. District Court Chief Judge

    Comments are closed.

    • The Big Idea
    August 5, 2025

    The Big Idea: Who Counts (and Who Doesn’t) in the U.S. Census 

    March 31, 2025

    The Big Idea: Local Politics, Reform Prosecutors, and Reshaping Mass Incarceration

    March 3, 2025

    The Big Idea: Forced Labor, Global Supply Chains, and Workers’ Rights

    November 6, 2024

    The Big Idea: Partisanship, Perception, and Prosecutorial Power

    READ MORE

    About

    Fordham University - The Jesuit University of New York

    Founded in 1841, Fordham is the Jesuit University of New York, offering exceptional education distinguished by the Jesuit tradition to more than 15,100 students in its four undergraduate colleges and its six graduate and professional schools.
    Connect With Fordham
    © 2025 ThemeSphere. Designed by ThemeSphere.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.