The City of Boston, along with its Public Health Commission and Housing Authority, sued two major pharmacy benefit managers, OptumRx and Express Scripts, in January 2024. The City alleged that these defendants violated Massachusetts public nuisance law by colluding with opioid manufacturers to misrepresent the risks of opioids, causing injury to the City. This lawsuit followed a similar 2018 suit the City brought against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies. After the case was removed to federal court, the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the 2024 suit was filed well after the three-year statute of limitations period had run. The City opposed dismissal, arguing that the defendants fraudulently concealed the cause of action and that the complaint alleged a continuing nuisance. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding the City knew or should have known of its injuries well before 2021 and that the complaint failed to plead a continuing nuisance under state law.
The First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal on two primary grounds. First, regarding the statute of limitations and fraudulent concealment, the court analyzed Massachusetts General Laws chapter 260, section 12. The City argued that the statute should be tolled because the defendants concealed the cause of action. The court rejected this, holding that the statute does not apply when a plaintiff has actual knowledge of the claim. The court clarified that actual knowledge is imputed to a plaintiff who has the means to acquire the facts in circumstances where the probability of wrongdoing is so evident that possession of those means is equivalent to actual knowledge. The court found the City had such knowledge before 2021. This conclusion was supported by the City's own 2018 lawsuit against manufacturers, the existence of at least seventy-four public lawsuits filed by other municipalities against the same defendants between 2018 and 2019, and the fact that the City's counsel received a letter in January 2018 explicitly informing them of the PBMs' role in the opioid scheme. The court noted that the City's argument that it lacked knowledge of the specific harm caused by PBMs was a misunderstanding of the actual knowledge standard. Second, the court addressed the City's argument that the claim was not time-barred because it alleged an ongoing condition. The court held this argument was waived because it was not raised in the district court. Even if considered, the court found the argument failed on the merits. Under Massachusetts law, a continuing nuisance requires pleading recurring tortious conduct within the limitations period. The court cited Taygeta Corp. v. Varian Assocs., explaining that a nuisance cannot be established by the continuation of harm caused by previous but terminated conduct. The City's complaint lacked sufficiently specific recent acts of misconduct; the most recent actions alleged were remedial measures taken by the defendants, not actionable tortious conduct.
The dismissal of the City of Boston's public nuisance lawsuit against pharmacy benefit managers stands, meaning the claims are time-barred under Massachusetts law. This decision reinforces the strict application of the statute of limitations in opioid litigation and clarifies that the continuing nuisance doctrine does not extend the limitations period for harm resulting from past conduct. The ruling leaves open the question of whether other jurisdictions with different statutes or pleading standards might allow similar claims to proceed, but for Massachusetts, the window for filing such claims against PBMs has closed for conduct occurring prior to the limitations period. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion to disqualify the City's law firm, Motley Rice, from representing the City.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download