06/15/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

If individual subdivisions do not agree to a settlement, what will happen? If there are hold outs or subdivisions that do not respond, the MOU contemplates that the State will either file a new suit or sever its claims against settling defendants from its existing opioid lawsuit and add political subdivisions and through either a class action mechanism or declaratory relief seek to bar future subdivision claims: Such action is necessary to ensure that the State and any subdivisions that agree to a settlement maximize their recoveries. This not a novel position and there is a substantial body of Florida law that exists that the State may resolve and release public claims including subdivision claims..' That being said, the State would prefer that we reach agreement on the allocation under the proposed MOU and handle things consensually. But, if there are holdouts, the State is prepared to litigate or seek legislation from the legislature to ensure that cities and counties that agree to this MOU are protected and will receive the recovery contemplated under the allocation. What are the next steps and the timeline? We would ask that you review the attached MOU and proposed model resolution supporting an agreement on the MOU terms. We will be scheduling calls to answer questions about the MOU. We would ask each subdivision to think about who is attending each session and ensure that any of those discussions will not violate Florida's government -in -the -sunshine law. If you will contact my administrator, Janna Barineau, by e-mail (.larnna.Bai-lneau:crmiN,noridalc�2al.com), we will include you in those discussions. After those discussions, we would then ask that you follow Florida law for approving such a resolution by Your commission and in due course, pass it, and return a copy to me at the address on the first page of the letter. Potential settlements are anticipated in the coming weeks or months, but I cannot tell you exactly when a settlement will be finalised. "these proposed settlements are 1 See Fla. Stat. 5501.207(1)(c)(authorizing the Attorney General to bring "[a]n action on behalf of one or more consumers or government entities for actual damages.. "tinder Florida's Deceptive and Unfair `Trade Practices Act); e.g., Eggle v. Liggett Group, hic., 945 So. 2d 1.246, 1258-62 (Fla. 2006); Young v. iViami Beach huprovement Co., 46 So. 2d 26, 30 (Fla. 1950); Castro v. Stat Bank of Bal Harbour, 370 So. 2d 392, 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Cil), q0tell, tell, P01-1 Richey v* Stale e.v rel. O'jllalley, 145 So. 903, 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); also Seale of I"lorida cis rel. SheviIl V. E.Y on Crnp., 526 F.2d 266, 275 (5"' Cir. 1976) (holding that the Attorney General could file suit seeking damages for injuries sustained by government entities who had not specifically authorized tine Attorney General to do so); Eggers v. City of Ke), JVesl, 2007 WL 9702450, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2007) (concluding "[a]pplicablc Florida law states that a judgment in an action brought against a public entity that adjudicates matters of general interest to the citizens of the jurisdiction is binding on all citizens of that jurisdiction."); Aerojel-General Corp. v. Aske»>, 3661. Supp. 901, 908-11 (N.D. Fla. 1973). Page 6 of 7 58