CC 2024-07-23_09c Settlement Agreements with Distributors of OpioidsItem 9.c.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Matthew Downing, City Manager
BY: Nicole Valentine, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Opting into Settlement Agreements with Distributors of Opioids;
Kroger National Opioid Settlement
DATE: July 23, 2024
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Opt into settlement agreement with opioid distributor, Kroger Co., and direct the City
Manager to execute any documents necessary to implement the action; and
2) Make findings that adopting the Resolution opting-into the settlement agreements is
not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because the
adoption in itself has no potential to result in either a direct, or r easonably foreseeable
indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd.
(c)(2)-(3), 15378.)
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
California is to receive approximately $1.2 billion from the settlements and is required to
distribute these funds pursuant to intrastate allocation agreements for the new
settlements. The City of Arroyo Grande has been allocated 0.024% of the 70% of the
approximate $122,000,000. The City can opt into these five settlements and potentially
receive up to $20,496 in direct funding. This amount will be disbursed over a period of
eleven years, with payments decreasing as each settlement finishes paying out. The first
payments are scheduled to occur in the latter half of 2024.
BACKGROUND:
The national opioid crisis created by opioid manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers
has been well-documented over the last decade as communities have struggled to
address its devastating impacts. Since 2018, numerous jurisdictions across the country
have been engaged in a multi-jurisdictional lawsuit against some of the principal parties
responsible for creating the crisis. After years of Court-supervised negotiations, the
parties reached a resolution of the case against several defendants.
Page 48 of 184
Item 9.c.
City Council
Opting into Settlement Agreements with Distributors of Opioids; Kroger National
Opioid Settlement
July 23, 2024
Page 2
Litigation brought by states and cities across the United States against the three largest
pharmaceutical distributors of opioid painkillers, Amerisource Bergen, Cardinal Health,
and McKesson (the “Distributors”), and the opioid painkiller manufacturer, Janssen
(owned by Johnson & Johnson) (“J&J”), resulted in two proposed settlements totaling
approximately $26 billion dollars. The City has previously opted into the Distributors and
the J&J Settlements on December 14, 2021, and has started receiving payments.
Between November and December 2022, five additional parties; Walgreens, Walmart,
CVS, Teva, and Allergan entered into National Opioid Settlements with terms identical to
the Distributors/J&J Settlements. The City opted into the settlements with the these
parties on April 11, 2023.
In 2024, Kroger Co. reached a tentative settlement regarding its outstanding opioid
distribution claims. A copy of the settlement agreement can be found at
https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Kroger-Multistate-
Settlement-Agreement-Circulated-to-States-March-25-2024.pdf.
In March 2024, the State of California entered into a Subdivision Agreement Regarding
Distribution and Use of Settle Funds with Kroger National Opioid Settlement with terms
identical to the previous opioid settlements. The deadline to opt into the settlements with
the New Parties is August 12, 2024.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Allocation of Funds
Additional litigation brought by states and cities across the United States against Kroger
National Opioid Settlement has resulted in a proposed settlement totaling approximately
$1.2 billion dollars.
As outlined in the Intrastate Allocation Agreements, Settlement Fund payments due to
the State of California are allocated as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the
California Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund. This
results in the State receiving 15% of the payments allocated to California and local
subdivisions receiving the remaining 85%. The percentages paid out to the California
Subdivision Fund is reserved for entities that participated in the litigation of the claims
giving rise to the settlement agreements. The percentages paid out to local subdivisions
that did not litigate but choose to opt into the settlements comes from the share of the
settlement proceeds that are placed in the California Abatement Accounts Fund (70% of
the total allocated to the State). Essentially, this means that the City of Arroyo Grande, if
it chooses to opt into the settlement, is entitled to receive a percentage share from the
California Abatement Accounts Fund. Of the amounts above, California is to receive
approximately $122 million and is to distribute these funds pursuant to intrastate
allocation agreements for the new settlement.
Page 49 of 184
Item 9.c.
City Council
Opting into Settlement Agreements with Distributors of Opioids; Kroger National
Opioid Settlement
July 23, 2024
Page 3
The City of Arroyo Grande has been allocated 0.024% of the 70% of the approximate
$122,000,000 total settlement amount, which is equal to $20,496.00. It should be noted
that this amount is the maximum amount that the City can receive from this settlement.
In order to encourage maximum participation, the amount of funds to be paid to each
government entity is tied to the overall amount of government entities that opt into the
settlements. The more government entities opt in, the higher the amount that the City will
receive. The final amount to be received by the City will be finalized after the August 12th
deadline when the total participation in the settlement can be determined. This total
amount will be disbursed over a period of eleven years, with payments decreasing as
each settlement finishes paying out.
The default distribution of funds in the settlement agreements provides that the funds will
go directly to the county in which a city is located. A city can elect to have its funds
delivered directly to the city by providing notice in the settlement agreements. Additionally,
a city within a county may opt in or out of direct payment at any time, and it may also elect
direct payment of only a portion of its share, with the remainder going to the county, by
providing notice to the settlement fund administrators at least sixty days prior to a payment
date.
In deciding whether to allow a city’s funds to go directly to the county in which a city is
located, a city should consider the following: (1) whether the amount of money is
substantial enough for the city to handle it on its own; (2) whether the city offe rs the
services and has the employees to spend the money in accordance with its prescribed
uses; and (3) whether the city wants to engage in the reporting requirements over the
course of the next twelve years, which includes eleven years of distribution and an
additional year following final distribution.
Use of Received Funds
Similar to the Distributor and previous Settlements, funds received from this additional
settlement must be used for future opioid remediation or abatement. For instance,
participating agencies may use funds for areas such as services to treat opioid use
disorder; support people in treatment and recovery; connect people to care; address
needs of criminal justice-involved persons; address the needs of pregnant or parenting
women and their families, including babies with neonatal abstinence syndrome; prevent
over-prescribing and ensure appropriate prescribing and dispensing of opioids; prevent
misuse of opioids; prevent overdose deaths and other harms; provide leadership,
planning, and coordination of programs; provide training; and conduct research.
The Intrastate Allocation Agreements (Exhibit B) also provide spending limitations in
addition to those provided in the settlement agreements. Under the Intrastate Allocation
Agreements, no less than 50% of the funds received in each calendar year must be used
for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities:
Page 50 of 184
Item 9.c.
City Council
Opting into Settlement Agreements with Distributors of Opioids; Kroger National
Opioid Settlement
July 23, 2024
Page 4
1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder
facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program;
2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment
infrastructure;
3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations
(including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are
disproportionately impacted by SUD;
4) diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by
providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non -
sworn) and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and def lection,
employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction; and/or
5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth.
In addition to these requirements, there is also a time limit on the spending of received
funds. If funds are not expended or encumbered within five years of receipt and in
accordance with the settlement agreements and the Intrastate Allocation Agreements,
the funds are required to be transferred back to the State.
Management of Funds
Each county and city that receives payment of funds from the settlements must prepare
written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds until the funds are fully
expended and for one year thereafter. Each county and city will need to track all deposits
and expenditures. These reports will also include a certification that all funds received
have been used in compliance with the allocation agreements. The California Department
of Healthcare and Services (“DHCS”) may review these reports in order to determine
compliance with the settlement agreements and the Intrastate Allocation Agreement.
If the DHCS determines that a participating subdivision’s use of abatement funds is
inconsistent with the settlement agreements or Intrastate Allocation Agreements, the
parties are required to meet and confer. If the meet and confer process does not provide
a resolution, the DHCS may conduct an audit, which can lead to a court action if the
matter is still not resolved after an audit.
Opting In
The City must opt into the settlements by August 12, 2024, which requires the City to
release its claims against Kroger Co. If the City takes no action, it will have opted out of
the settlements and its designated funds will flow to the State. The City would still have
the opportunity to bring its own action against Kroger Co.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Opt into the settlements and elect to receive the payments directly (subject to the
use and reporting requirements);
Page 51 of 184
Item 9.c.
City Council
Opting into Settlement Agreements with Distributors of Opioids; Kroger National
Opioid Settlement
July 23, 2024
Page 5
2. Opt into the settlements, but allow the County to receive the payments (City
would not be responsible for any use/reporting requirements and the money
would stay within the County); Provide other direction to staff;
3. Do not opt-into the settlements; or
4. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Approval of the settlement agreement will provide funding for training, programs, and
interventions to avoid drug overdoses and addiction in the City.
DISADVANTAGES:
Approval of the settlement agreement will increa se reporting requirements for the City
elects to retain the funding rather than allocate it to the County. However, should reporting
requirements prove to become too onerous, the City may allocate its funding to the
County to support its addiction programs.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item. Adopting the Resolution opting-into the
settlement agreements is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”) because the adoption in itself has no po tential to result in either a direct, or
reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA
Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.)
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Resolution
Page 52 of 184
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO THE NATIONAL OPIOID
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH KROGER CO. , AGREE
TO THE TERMS OF THE STATE-SUBDIVISION
AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE ENTRY INTO THE
STATE-SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT WITH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
WHEREAS, the United States is facing an ongoing public health crisis of opioid abuse,
addiction, overdose, and death, forcing the State of California and California counties and
cities to spend billions of dollars each year to address the direct consequences of this
crisis; and
WHEREAS, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio is a
multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) being pursued by numerous public entity plaintiffs against
the manufacturers and distributors of various opioids based on the allegation that the
defendants’ unlawful conduct caused the opioid epidemic; and
WHEREAS in 2024, a proposed nationwide tentative settlement was reached between
the plaintiffs in the MDL and Kroger Co. (“Kroger”); and
WHEREAS, Kroeger shall be referred in this Resolution as the “Settling Defendant”; and
WHEREAS, as part of the settlements with the Settling Defendant, local subdivisions,
including certain cities, that are not plaintiffs in the MDL may participate in the settlements
in exchange for a release of the Settling Defendant; and
WHEREAS, copies of the proposed terms have been set forth in the Master Settlement
Agreements with the Settling Defendant; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Master Settlement Agreements have been provided to the City
Council with this Resolution in Exhibits A and B; and
WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreements provide, among other things, for the payment of
a certain sum to settling government entities in California including to the State of
California and Participating Subdivisions upon occurrence of certain events as defined in
the Settlement Agreements (“California Opioid Funds”); and
WHEREAS, California local governments in the MDL have engaged in extensive
discussions with the State Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”) as to how the California
Opioid Funds will be allocated, which has resulted in the Proposed California State -
Page 53 of 184
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE
2
Subdivision Agreements Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds (“Allocation
Agreement”) from the settlements with the Settling Defendant; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Allocation Agreement for the settlement with the Settling
Defendant have been provided with this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Allocation Agreement allocate the California Opioid Funds as follows:
15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to the Subdivision
Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from the Settlements
shall be combined pursuant to the Allocation Agreement, and 15% of total from each
settlement shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California Allocation”),
70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts Fund”), and
15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”); and
WHEREAS, under the Master Settlement Agreement, certain local subdivisions that did
not file a lawsuit against the Settlement Defendant may qualify to participate in the
settlements and obtain funds from the Abatement Account Fund; and
WHEREAS, the City is eligible to participate in the Settlement and become a CA
Participating Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund (the 70% allocation) will be
allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed
negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as
adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or
litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision (those above 10,000 in
population). The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each
CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 to the Allocation Agreements and
provided to the City Council with this Resolution. The City’s share of the CA Abatement
Accounts Fund will be a product of the total in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund
multiplied by the City’s percentage set forth in Appendix 1 of the Allocation Agreements
(the “Local Allocation”); and
WHEREAS, a CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local
Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local
Allocation share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivisio n will be paid to the county
in which the city is located, unless the city elects to take a direct election of the settlement
funds, so long as: (a) the county is a CA Participating Subdivision, and (b) the city has
not advised the Settlement Fund Administrator that it requests direct payment at least 60
days prior to a Payment Date; and
WHEREAS, it the intent of this Resolution is to authorize the City Manager to enter into
the Master Settlement Agreement with the Settling Defendant by executing the
Participation and the Allocation Agreements by executing the signature pages to those
agreements.
Page 54 of 184
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE
3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2. The City Manager is authorized to settle and release the City’s claims
against the Settling Defendant in exchange for the consideration set fort h in the
Settlement Agreement and Allocation Agreements incorporated herein as Exhibits A and
B, including taking the following measures:
1. The execution of the Participation Agreement with the Settling Defendant
and any and all documents ancillary thereto.
2. The execution of the Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds with the Settling
Defendant by executing the signature pages to those Allocation
Agreements.
3. Notify the Settlement Fund Administrator that the City requests a direct
payment under the Allocation Agreements at least 60 days prior to the
Payment Date in the Settlement Agreements.
SECTION 3. CEQA. That the City Council finds this Resolution is not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the activity is covered by the general
rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant
effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty, as in this case, that there
is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060,
subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.)
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions
or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are declared to be
severable.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
On motion of Council Member ________, seconded by _________, and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of July, 2024.
Page 55 of 184
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE
4
CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 56 of 184
New National Opioids Settlement: KrogerOpioids Implementation Administratoropioidsparticipation@rubris.com
Arroyo Grande city, CAReference Number:
TO LOCAL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS:
THIS PACKAGE CONTAINS DOCUMENTATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEWNATIONAL OPIOIDS SETTLEMENT. YOU MUST TAKE ACTION IN ORDER TOPARTICIPATE.
Deadline: August 12, 2024
A new proposed national opioids settlement (“New National Opioids Settlement”)has been reached with Kroger (“Settling Defendant”). This Participation Package isa follow-up communication to the Notice of National Opioids Settlement recentlyreceived electronically by your subdivision.
You are receiving this Participation Package because California is participating inthe Kroger settlement.
This electronic envelope contains three attachments:
The Participation Form for the Kroger settlement, including a release of anyclaims;
California State Subdivision Agreement for Kroger; and
Side-letter agreement between California and Kroger
The Participation Form and California State-Subdivision Agreement mustbe executed, without alteration, and submitted on or before August 12,2024, in order for your subdivision to be considered for initialparticipation calculations and payment eligibility.
The side-letter agreement between California and Kroger modifies, as it applies toCalifornia, one injunctive relief term contained in Exhibit P, Section IX(5)(1) of theKroger National Settlement Agreement.
Based upon subdivision participation forms received on or before August 12, 2024,the subdivision participation rate will be used to determine whether participation issufficient for the settlement to move forward and whether a state earns itsmaximum potential payment under the settlement. If the settlement movesforward, your release will become effective. If a settlement does not move forward,that release will not become effective.
Any subdivision that does not participate cannot directly share in the settlementfunds, even if the subdivision’s state is settling and other participating subdivisionsare sharing in settlement funds. Any subdivision that does not participate may alsoreduce the amount of money for programs to remediate the opioid crisis in its state.
EXHIBIT A
Page 57 of 184
Please note, a subdivision will not necessarily directly receive settlement funds byparticipating; decisions on how settlement funds will be allocated within a state aresubject to intrastate agreements or state statutes.
You are encouraged to discuss the terms and benefits of the New National OpioidsSettlement with your city attorney/county counsel, outside counsel representingyour city/county on opioid matters, the Attorney General’s Office, and othercontacts within your state. Many states are implementing and allocating funds forthis new settlement the same as they did for the prior opioids settlements withMcKesson, Cardinal, Cencora (formerly AmerisourceBergen), J&J/Janssen, Teva,Allergan, CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart but states may choose to treat thissettlement differently.
Information and documents regarding the New National Opioids Settlement andhow it is being implemented in your state and how funds will be allocated withinyour state can be found on the national settlement website athttps://nationalopioidsettlement.com/ and the California Attorney General’s websiteat https://oag.ca.gov/opioids. This website will be supplemented as additionaldocuments are created. Please also refer to the Side-Letter Agreement with Kroger,which modifies the Kroger National Opioid Settlement’s injunctive relief within theState of California.
How to return signed forms:
There are three methods for returning the executed Participation Form, theCalifornia-State Subdivision Agreement (“Subdivision Agreement”), and anysupporting documentation to the Implementation Administrator:
(1)Electronic Signature via DocuSign: Executing the Participation Form and theSubdivision Agreement electronically through DocuSign will return the signedform to the Implementation Administrator and associate your form with yoursubdivision’s records. Electronic signature is the most efficient method forreturning the Participation Form and the Subdivision Agreement , allowing formore timely participation and the potential to meet higher settlementpayment thresholds, and is therefore strongly encouraged.
(2)Manual Signature returned via DocuSign : DocuSign allows forms to bedownloaded, signed manually, then uploaded to DocuSign and returnedautomatically to the Implementation Administrator. Please be sure tocomplete all fields and note that execution and return of both the SubdivisionAgreement and the Participation Form are required for participation in thecorresponding settlement. As with electronic signature, returning a manuallysigned Participation Form and Subdivision Agreement via DocuSign willassociate your signed forms with your subdivision’s records.
(3)Manual Signature returned via electronic mail : If your subdivision is unable toreturn an executed Participation Form and Subdivision Agreement usingDocuSign, the signed Participation Form and Subdivision Agreement may bereturned via electronic mail to opioidsparticipation@rubris.com. Pleaseinclude the name, state, and reference ID of your subdivision in the body of
Page 58 of 184
the email and use the subject line Settlement Participation Form –[Subdivision Name, Subdivision State] – [Reference ID]. N ote that executionand return of both the Subdivision Agreement and the Participation Form arerequired for participation in the corresponding settlement.
Detailed instructions on how to sign and return the Participation Form andSubdivision Agreement, including changing the authorized signer, can be found athttps://nationalopioidsettlement.com/. You may also contactopioidsparticipation@rubris.com.
The sign-on period for subdivisions ends on August 12, 2024.
If you have any questions about executing the Participation Form, please contact your city attorney/county counsel, outside counsel representing your city/county on opioids matters, the Implementation Administrator at opioidsparticipation@rubris.com, or the California Attorney General’s Office at opioidsettlement-localgovernment@doj.ca.gov . Thank you, New National Opioids Settlement Implementation Administrator
The Implementation Administrator is retained to provide the settlement noticerequired by the New National Opioids Settlement and to manage the collection ofthe Participation Form.
Page 59 of 184
Subdivision Participation and Release Form
Governmental Entity: Arroyo Grande city State: CA
Authorized Signatory: /officialname_kroger/
Address 1: /address1_kroger/
Address 2: /address2_kroger/
City, State, Zip: /cit_kr/ /state_kr/ /zi_kr/
Phone: /phone_kroger/
Email: /email_kroger/
The governmental entity identified above (“Governmental Entity”), in order to obtain and
in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement dated March 22, 2024 (“Kroger Settlement”), and acting through the undersigned
authorized official, hereby elects to participate in the Kroger Settlement, release all Released
Claims against all Released Entities, and agrees as follows.
1.The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Kroger Settlement,
understands that all terms in this Participation and Release Form have the meanings
defined therein, and agrees that by executing this Participation and Release Form, the
Governmental Entity elects to participate in the Kroger Settlement and become a
Participating Subdivision as provided therein.
2.The Governmental Entity shall promptly, and in any event no later than 14 days after the
Reference Date and prior to the filing of the Consent Judgment, dismiss with prejudice
any Released Claims that it has filed. With respect to any Released Claims pending in In
re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804, the Governmental Entity
authorizes the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee to execute and file on behalf of the
Governmental Entity a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice substantially in the form
found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/.
3.The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Kroger Settlement pertaining to
Participating Subdivisions as defined therein.
4.By agreeing to the terms of the Kroger Settlement and becoming a Releasor, the
Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including, if applicable,
monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date.
5.The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Kroger
Settlement solely for the purposes provided therein.
6.The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental
Entity’s state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that court’s role
as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in, the Kroger
Settlement. The Governmental Entity likewise agrees to arbitrate before the National
1
Page 60 of 184
Arbitration Panel as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent otherwise
provided in, the Kroger Settlement.
7.The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Kroger Settlement as provided
therein.
8.The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for
all purposes in the Kroger Settlement, including without limitation all provisions of
Section XI (Release), and along with all departments, agencies, divisions, boards,
commissions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in
their official capacity elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency,
person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity
identified in the definition of Releasor, provides for a release to the fullest extent of its
authority. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely, unconditionally,
and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be
brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released
Claims against any Released Entity in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for
in the Kroger Settlement are intended by the Parties to be broad and shall be interpreted
so as to give the Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating
in any way to Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the
Governmental Entity to release claims. The Kroger Settlement shall be a complete bar to
any Released Claim.
9.The Governmental Entity hereby takes on all rights and obligations of a Participating
Subdivision as set forth in the Kroger Settlement.
10.In connection with the releases provided for in the Kroger Settlement, each
Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all
provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the
United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar,
comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:
General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that
the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or
her favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her
would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or
released party.
A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it
knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but each
Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles,
releases and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may
exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether
through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and
which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities’ decision to
participate in the Kroger Settlement.
2
Page 61 of 184
11.Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Kroger Settlement, to
which Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent this Participation and Release
Form is interpreted differently from the Kroger Settlement in any respect, the Kroger
Settlement controls.
I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Participation and Release
Form on behalf of the Governmental Entity.
Signature:/signer_1_kroger/
Name:/name_1_kroger/
Title:/title_1_kroger/
Date:/date_1_kroger/
3
Page 62 of 184
Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Kroger Settlement
1.Introduction
Pursuant to the Kroger Settlement Agreement, dated as of March 22, 2024, and any revision
thereto as well as any modification thereto entered into by the State of California and Kroger (the
“Kroger Settlement Agreement”), including Section V and Exhibit O, the State of California
proposes this agreement (the “CA Kroger Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation,
distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections IV
and V of the Kroger Settlement Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not
apply to payments made pursuant to Section IX of the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Kroger Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA
Kroger Allocation Agreement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision.
2.Definitions
a)CA Participating Subdivision means a Participating Subdivision that is also (a) a
Plaintiff Subdivision and/or (b) a Primary Subdivision with a population equal to or
greater than 10,000. For the avoidance of doubt, eligible CA Participating
Subdivisions are those California subdivisions listed in Exhibit C (excluding
Litigating Special Districts) and/or Exhibit I to the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
b)Allergan Settlement Agreement means the Allergan Settlement Agreement dated
November 22, 2022, and any revision thereto.
c)CVS Settlement Agreement means the CVS Settlement Agreement dated December 9,
2022, and any revision thereto as well as any modification thereto entered into by the
State of California and CVS.
d)Distributor Settlement Agreement means the Distributor Settlement Agreement dated
July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
e)Janssen Settlement Agreement means the Janssen Settlement Agreement dated July
21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
f)Teva Settlement Agreement means the Teva Settlement Agreement dated November
22, 2022, and any revision thereto.
g)Walgreens Settlement Agreement means the Walgreens Settlement Agreement dated
December 9, 2022, and any revision thereto.
h)Walmart Settlement Agreement means the Walmart Settlement Agreement dated
November 14, 2022, and any revision thereto.
i)CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in
California. CA Litigating Special Districts include Downey Unified School District,
1
Page 63 of 184
Elk Grove Unified School District, Kern High School District, Montezuma Fire
Protection District (located in Stockton, California), Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo
Regional Health Authority, Inland Empire Health Plan, Health Plan of San Joaquin,
San Leandro Unified School District, Pleasant Valley School District Board, and LA
Care Health Plan.
j)Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a CA
Litigating Special District, that filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Subdivision and/or
through an official of the Subdivision on behalf of the People of the State of
California, against one or more Opioid Defendants prior to October 1, 2020.
k)Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to Kroger Co.,
Walgreen Co., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan
Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walmart Inc., Johnson &
Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc.,
AmerisourceBergen Corporation, and McKesson Corporation) named in a lawsuit
seeking damages, abatement, or other remedies related to or caused by the opioid
public health crisis in any lawsuit brought by any state or local government on or
before October 1, 2020.
3.General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Kroger Settlement Agreement, as well as
applicable law, and the Kroger Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of
this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement
have the same meaning as in the Kroger Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.
Pursuant to Section V(D)(1) of the Kroger Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund
payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section V(B)(2) of the
Kroger Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund
payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.
4.State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California,1 pursuant to the Kroger Settlement Agreement,
shall be allocated as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and
15% to the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from
the Settlement Fund shall be combined pursuant to this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement, and
15% of that total shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California
Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts
Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”).
1 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of
California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of
California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.
2
Page 64 of 184
A.State of California Allocation
Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the State and used by
the State for future Opioid Remediation.
B.CA Abatement Accounts Fund
i.Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a)Seventy percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA
Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be
allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed
negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as
adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or
litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA
Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in
Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For
the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and
counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA
Abatement Accounts Funds.
b)A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its
Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision,
and will receive payments as provided in the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
c)A CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share
as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation
share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which
the city is located, rather than to the city, so long as: (a) the county is a CA Participating
Subdivision, and (b) the city did not elect to receive its share of funds in the National
Opioids Settlement with Distributors AmerisourceBergenCorporation, Cardinal Health,
Inc., and McKesson Corporation (the “Distributors Settlement”). If a city later changes or
has already changed its distribution election in the Distributors Settlement, that change in
election will apply here, provided that the change in election is received by the settlement
administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. A Local Allocation share allocated
to a city but paid to a county is not required to be spent exclusively for abatement
activities in that city, but will become part of the county’s share of the CA Abatement
Accounts Funds, which will be used in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Use of CA
Abatement Accounts Funds) and reported on in accordance with Section 4.B.iii (CA
Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight).
d)A city within a county that is a CA Participating Subdivision may opt in or out of direct
payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share,
with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the Settlement Fund
Administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. For purposes of this CA Kroger
Allocation Agreement, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and
3
Page 65 of 184
Eureka will be deemed to have elected direct payment if they become Participating
Subdivisions.
e)The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund
that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating
Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund,
become a Participating Subdivision.
f)Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered
within five years of receipt and in accordance with the Kroger Settlement Agreement and
this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided
however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA
Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must
be transferred to the State. This provision shall not apply to the Cost Reimbursement
Funds, which shall be controlled by Appendix 2.
ii.Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a)The CA Abatement Accounts Funds will be used for future Opioid Remediation in one or
more of the areas described in the List of Opioid Remediation Uses, which is Exhibit E to
the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
b)In addition to this requirement, no less than 50% of the funds received by a CA
Participating Subdivision from the Abatement Accounts Fund in each calendar year will
be used for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities:
(1)the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities
within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program;
(2)creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure;
(3)addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including
sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted
by SUD;
(4)diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by
providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non-sworn)
and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection,
employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction;
(5)interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth, including but not limited
to, youth in foster care, juvenile justice-impacted youth, youth experiencing
adversities related to socioeconomic status, and unhoused youth; and/or
(6)the purchase of naloxone for distribution and efforts to expand access to naloxone for
opioid overdose reversals.
4
Page 66 of 184
c)The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) may add to this list (but
not delete from it) by designating additional High Impact Abatement Activities. DHCS
will make reasonable efforts to consult with stakeholders, including the CA Participating
Subdivisions, before adding additional High Impact Abatement Activities to this list.
d)For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the Kroger Settlement
Agreement and applicable law, CA Participating Subdivisions may form agreements or
ventures, or otherwise work in collaboration with, federal, state, local, tribal or private
sector entities in pursuing Opioid Remediation activities funded from the CA Abatement
Accounts Fund. Further, provided that all CA Abatement Accounts Funds are used for
Opioid Remediation consistent with the Kroger Settlement Agreement and this CA
Kroger Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may
agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among
themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating
Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being
reallocated.
iii.CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a)Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds
must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may
regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of
CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Kroger Settlement Agreement
and this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement.
b)If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement
Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Kroger Settlement Agreement or this CA Kroger
Allocation Agreement, whether through review of reports or information from any other
sources, DHCS shall send a request to meet and confer with the CA Participating
Subdivision. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the concern.
c)If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, DHCS may conduct an audit of the
Subdivision’s use of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds within one year of the request to
meet and confer, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the meet and
confer time frame.
d)If the concern still cannot be resolved, the State may bring a motion or action in the court
where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to resolve the concern or otherwise
enforce the requirements of the Kroger Settlement Agreement or this CA Kroger
Allocation Agreement. However, in no case shall any audit be conducted, or motion be
brought, as to a specific expenditure of funds, more than five years after the date on
which the expenditure of the funds was reported to DHCS, in accordance with this
agreement.
5
Page 67 of 184
e)Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement does not limit the statutory or
constitutional authority of any state or local agency or official to conduct audits,
investigations, or other oversight activities, or to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal
enforcement actions.
C.CA Subdivision Fund
i.Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA
Subdivision Fund. All funds in the CA Subdivision Fund will be allocated among the
Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. The funds will be used,
subject to any limits imposed by the Kroger Settlement Agreement and this CA Kroger
Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioid-
related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation, and to pay
the reasonable fees and expenses of the Special Master as set forth in Appendix 2.
The CA Subdivision Funds will be allocated as follows:
a)First, funds in the CA Subdivision Fund shall be used to pay the Special Master’s
reasonable fees and expenses in accordance with the procedures and limitations set
forth in Appendix 2 to this document;
b)Second, funds will be allocated to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating
Subdivisions that have been awarded Costs, as defined by and in accordance with the
procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document.
c)Funds remaining in the CA Subdivision Fund, which shall consist of no less than 50%
of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year pursuant to Appendix 2,
Section 2.c.v, will be distributed to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating
Subdivisions, in relative proportion to the Local Allocation. These funds shall be used
to fund future opioid-related projects and to reimburse past opioid-related expenses,
which may include fees and expenses related to litigation against any Opioid
Defendant.
D.Provision for State Back-Stop Agreement
On August 6, 2021, Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, issued an order (ECF Docket Number 3814) (“MDL Fees Order”) in the
National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) “cap[ping] all applicable contingent fee
agreements at 15%.” Private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions should seek its
contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds under the Kroger
Settlement Agreement, and, if applicable, the Teva Settlement Agreement, Allergan Settlement
Agreement, CVS Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement
Agreement, and Walmart Settlement Agreement.
A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay
for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”),
6
Page 68 of 184
pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(CC), of the Kroger Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees
Order, so long as such contingency fees do not exceed a total contingency fee of 15% of the total
gross recovery of the Plaintiff Subdivision pursuant to the Kroger Settlement, inclusive of
contingency fees from the national Attorney Fee Fund and this State Back-Stop Agreement.
Before seeking fees or litigation costs and expenses from a State Back-Stop Agreement, private
counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions must first seek contingency fees and costs from the
Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds created under the Kroger Settlement Agreement. Further,
private counsel may only seek reimbursement for litigation fees and costs that have not
previously been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
To effectuate a State Back-Stop Agreement pursuant to this section, an agreement in the form of
Appendix 3 may be entered into by a Plaintiff Subdivision, private counsel, and the California
Office of the Attorney General. The California Office of the Attorney General shall, upon the
request of a Plaintiff Subdivision, execute any agreement executed by a Plaintiff Subdivision and
its private counsel if it is in the form of Appendix 3. The California Office of the Attorney
General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into
agreements presented in other forms.
For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or
enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any
duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without
limitation the Attorney General.
5.State and Subdivision Reporting
a)DHCS will prepare an annual written report regarding the State’s use of funds from the
settlement until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports
will be made publicly available on the DHCS web site.
b)Each CA Participating Subdivision that receives payments of funds from the settlement
will prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds, until those
funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will also include a
certification that all funds that the CA Participating Subdivision has received through the
settlement have been used in compliance with the Kroger Settlement Agreement and this
CA Kroger Allocation Agreement. The report will be in a form reasonably determined
by DHCS. Prior to specifying the form of the report DHCS will confer with
representatives of the Plaintiff Subdivisions.
c)The State and all CA Participating Subdivisions receiving CA Abatement Accounts
Funds will track all deposits and expenditures. Each such subdivision is responsible
solely for the CA Abatement Accounts Funds it receives. A county is not responsible for
oversight, reporting, or monitoring of CA Abatement Accounts Funds received by a city
within that county that receives direct payment. Unless otherwise exempt, Subdivisions’
expenditures and uses of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and other Settlement Funds will
be subject to the normal budgetary and expenditure process of the Subdivision.
7
Page 69 of 184
d)Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and
expenditures, as required by the Kroger Settlement Agreement and this CA Kroger
Allocation Agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff Subdivisions using monies from
the CA Subdivision Fund for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation must
identify and include in their annual report, the amount and how such funds were used,
including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs. Pursuant
to Section V(B)(2) of the Kroger Settlement Agreement, such information must also be
reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Kroger.
e)In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to
discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the
State and Participating Subdivisions.
6.Miscellaneous
a)The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court
where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA
Kroger Allocation Agreement. Before filing such a motion or action the State will meet
and confer with any CA Participating Subdivision that is the subject of the anticipated
motion or action, and vice versa.
b)Except as provided in the Kroger Settlement Agreement, this CA Kroger Allocation
Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating
Subdivisions. It does not confer any rights or remedies upon, and shall not be
enforceable by, any third party.
c)Except as provided in the CA Kroger Allocation Agreement, if any provision of this
agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any
extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement, or the application of
such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which it is
invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this
agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
d)Except as provided in the Kroger Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be
governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.
8
Page 70 of 184
The undersigned, Arroyo Grande city, ACKNOWLEDGES acceptance of this Proposed California
State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Kroger
Settlement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision in the Kroger Settlement and
ACCEPTS this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use
of Settlement Funds – Kroger Settlement. EXECUTED on /date_1_kroger/.
Signature:/signer_1_kroger/
Name:/name_1_kroger/
Title:/title_1_kroger/
Date:/date_1_kroger/
9
Page 71 of 184
APPENDIX 1
DISCLAIMER: The allocation percentages herein are estimates only and should not be relied on for decisions regarding legal rights,
releases, waivers, or other decisions affecting current or potential legal claims. Percentages shown in the Plaintiff Subdivision
Percentage column may change pursuant to Section 4.C. of the California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and
Use of Settlement Funds—Kroger Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not
change. Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the
Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA
Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not
an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the
California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision
Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant
to Section 4.C. Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-
hundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision
Percentage.
Page 72 of 184
APPENDIX 1
1 of 1
100.000%100.000%100.000%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
County Alameda County Alameda 2.332%2.853%2.4237952%
City Alameda Alameda 0.069%0.0570162%
City Albany Alameda 0.013%0.0107768%
City Berkeley Alameda 0.152%0.1249656%
City Dublin Alameda 0.033%0.040%0.0338810%
City Emeryville Alameda 0.023%0.0185765%
City Fremont Alameda 0.108%0.0888576%
City Hayward Alameda 0.117%0.0966218%
City Livermore Alameda 0.054%0.0446740%
City Newark Alameda 0.026%0.0217626%
City Oakland Alameda 0.486%0.595%0.5055601%
City Piedmont Alameda 0.014%0.0114064%
City Pleasanton Alameda 0.067%0.0554547%
City San Leandro Alameda 0.039%0.0321267%
City Union City Alameda 0.043%0.0352484%
County Amador County Amador 0.226%0.277%0.2349885%
County Butte County Butte 1.615%1.975%1.6783178%
City Chico Butte 0.216%0.264%0.2246499%
City Oroville Butte 0.079%0.0646595%
County Calaveras County Calaveras 0.226%0.277%0.2351644%
County Colusa County Colusa 0.059%0.0489221%
County Contra Costa County Contra Costa 2.102%2.571%2.1844585%
City Antioch Contra Costa 0.037%0.0301879%
City Brentwood Contra Costa 0.026%0.0215339%
City Clayton Contra Costa 0.002%0.0018060%
City Concord Contra Costa 0.055%0.0456676%
City Danville Contra Costa 0.010%0.0082255%
City El Cerrito Contra Costa 0.023%0.0189024%
City Hercules Contra Costa 0.010%0.0078273%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006%0.0046030%
Page 73 of 184
APPENDIX 1
2 of 1
City Martinez Contra Costa 0.012%0.0098593%
City Moraga Contra Costa 0.004%0.0031007%
City Oakley Contra Costa 0.010%0.0079416%
City Orinda Contra Costa 0.005%0.0038157%
City Pinole Contra Costa 0.013%0.0110909%
City Pittsburg Contra Costa 0.053%0.0436369%
City Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 0.013%0.0106309%
City Richmond Contra Costa 0.146%0.1201444%
City San Pablo Contra Costa 0.018%0.0148843%
City San Ramon Contra Costa 0.021%0.0176459%
City Walnut Creek Contra Costa 0.026%0.0212132%
County Del Norte County Del Norte 0.114%0.140%0.1189608%
County El Dorado County El Dorado 0.768%0.939%0.7980034%
City Placerville El Dorado 0.015%0.0127642%
City South Lake Tahoe El Dorado 0.081%0.0665456%
County Fresno County Fresno 1.895%2.318%1.9693410%
City Clovis Fresno 0.065%0.0536211%
City Coalinga Fresno 0.012%0.0098554%
City Fresno Fresno 0.397%0.3270605%
City Kerman Fresno 0.005%0.0042534%
City Kingsburg Fresno 0.008%0.0066167%
City Mendota Fresno 0.002%0.0019387%
City Orange Cove Fresno 0.004%0.0035607%
City Parlier Fresno 0.008%0.0069755%
City Reedley Fresno 0.012%0.0098804%
City Sanger Fresno 0.018%0.0146135%
City Selma Fresno 0.015%0.0127537%
County Glenn County Glenn 0.107%0.131%0.1116978%
County Humboldt County Humboldt 1.030%1.260%1.0703185%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Arcata Humboldt 0.054%0.0447660%
City Eureka Humboldt 0.117%0.143%0.1216284%
City Fortuna Humboldt 0.032%0.0266837%
County Imperial County Imperial 0.258%0.315%0.2679006%
Page 74 of 184
APPENDIX 1
3 of 1
City Brawley Imperial 0.011%0.0087986%
City Calexico Imperial 0.019%0.0152799%
City El Centro Imperial 0.158%0.1302522%
City Imperial Imperial 0.006%0.0048791%
County Inyo County Inyo 0.073%0.089%0.0754413%
County Kern County Kern 2.517%3.079%2.6159145%
City Arvin Kern 0.006%0.0046425%
City Bakersfield Kern 0.212%0.1747198%
City California City Kern 0.009%0.0070820%
City Delano Kern 0.030%0.0249316%
City McFarland Kern 0.003%0.0025644%
City Ridgecrest Kern 0.015%0.0120938%
City Shafter Kern 0.013%0.0103417%
City Tehachapi Kern 0.009%0.0073580%
City Wasco Kern 0.008%0.0069861%
County Kings County Kings 0.293%0.2413469%
City Avenal Kings 0.007%0.0056335%
City Corcoran Kings 0.013%0.0107032%
City Hanford Kings 0.027%0.0226038%
City Lemoore Kings 0.016%0.0131900%
County Lake County Lake 0.795%0.6545389%
City Clearlake Lake 0.041%0.050%0.0426253%
City Lakeport Lake 0.021%0.026%0.0222964%
County Lassen County Lassen 0.319%0.391%0.3320610%
City Susanville Lassen 0.027%0.0219295%
County Los Angeles County Los Angeles 13.896%16.999%14.4437559%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Agoura Hills Los Angeles 0.005%0.0040024%
City Alhambra Los Angeles 0.042%0.0343309%
City Arcadia Los Angeles 0.033%0.0267718%
City Artesia Los Angeles 0.001%0.0005100%
City Azusa Los Angeles 0.026%0.0210857%
City Baldwin Park Los Angeles 0.027%0.0218520%
City Bell Los Angeles 0.008%0.0068783%
Page 75 of 184
APPENDIX 1
4 of 1
City Bellflower Los Angeles 0.002%0.0014485%
City Bell Gardens Los Angeles 0.014%0.0114301%
City Beverly Hills Los Angeles 0.065%0.0534897%
City Burbank Los Angeles 0.100%0.0823132%
City Calabasas Los Angeles 0.006%0.0048948%
City Carson Los Angeles 0.019%0.0159805%
City Cerritos Los Angeles 0.005%0.0039682%
City Claremont Los Angeles 0.010%0.0082584%
City Commerce Los Angeles 0.000%0.0002971%
City Compton Los Angeles 0.044%0.0361882%
City Covina Los Angeles 0.028%0.0229127%
City Cudahy Los Angeles 0.001%0.0006020%
City Culver City Los Angeles 0.055%0.0449894%
City Diamond Bar Los Angeles 0.001%0.0006993%
City Downey Los Angeles 0.052%0.0429994%
City Duarte Los Angeles 0.003%0.0027261%
City El Monte Los Angeles 0.031%0.038%0.0318985%
City El Segundo Los Angeles 0.033%0.0268020%
City Gardena Los Angeles 0.034%0.0278088%
City Glendale Los Angeles 0.166%0.1366586%
City Glendora Los Angeles 0.016%0.0134411%
City Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles 0.005%0.0040549%
City Hawthorne Los Angeles 0.050%0.0407833%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 0.018%0.0145307%
City Huntington Park Los Angeles 0.023%0.0190667%
City Inglewood Los Angeles 0.059%0.0489195%
City La Cañada Flintridge Los Angeles 0.003%0.0025565%
City Lakewood Los Angeles 0.005%0.0039971%
City La Mirada Los Angeles 0.010%0.0081572%
City Lancaster Los Angeles 0.045%0.0369689%
City La Puente Los Angeles 0.002%0.0012999%
City La Verne Los Angeles 0.024%0.0194190%
City Lawndale Los Angeles 0.002%0.0017731%
Page 76 of 184
APPENDIX 1
5 of 1
City Lomita Los Angeles 0.004%0.0031940%
City Long Beach Los Angeles 0.439%0.3614151%
City Los Angeles Los Angeles 2.715%3.321%2.8218811%
City Lynwood Los Angeles 0.016%0.0134345%
City Malibu Los Angeles 0.002%0.0019269%
City Manhattan Beach Los Angeles 0.032%0.0260686%
City Maywood Los Angeles 0.004%0.0035528%
City Monrovia Los Angeles 0.031%0.0254455%
City Montebello Los Angeles 0.030%0.0250670%
City Monterey Park Los Angeles 0.031%0.0256677%
City Norwalk Los Angeles 0.031%0.0258228%
City Palmdale Los Angeles 0.046%0.0375827%
City Palos Verdes Estates Los Angeles 0.006%0.0053102%
City Paramount Los Angeles 0.011%0.0091483%
City Pasadena Los Angeles 0.146%0.1200524%
City Pico Rivera Los Angeles 0.022%0.0183333%
City Pomona Los Angeles 0.111%0.0911933%
City Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles 0.002%0.0012645%
City Redondo Beach Los Angeles 0.062%0.0506992%
City Rosemead Los Angeles 0.003%0.0028260%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City San Dimas Los Angeles 0.003%0.0022016%
City San Fernando Los Angeles 0.013%0.0104837%
City San Gabriel Los Angeles 0.018%0.0147726%
City San Marino Los Angeles 0.009%0.0073791%
City Santa Clarita Los Angeles 0.022%0.0178167%
City Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles 0.031%0.0257531%
City Santa Monica Los Angeles 0.158%0.1298513%
City Sierra Madre Los Angeles 0.006%0.0048646%
City Signal Hill Los Angeles 0.010%0.0084884%
City South El Monte Los Angeles 0.005%0.0039603%
City South Gate Los Angeles 0.020%0.0166272%
City South Pasadena Los Angeles 0.012%0.0095334%
City Temple City Los Angeles 0.005%0.0039498%
Page 77 of 184
APPENDIX 1
6 of
City Torrance Los Angeles 0.112%0.0919820%
City Walnut Los Angeles 0.006%0.0047305%
City West Covina Los Angeles 0.049%0.0404521%
City West Hollywood Los Angeles 0.013%0.0108517%
City Whittier Los Angeles 0.032%0.0260581%
County Madera County Madera 0.349%0.427%0.3630669%
City Chowchilla Madera 0.012%0.0097332%
City Madera Madera 0.039%0.0318441%
County Marin County Marin 0.564%0.690%0.5861325%
City Larkspur Marin 0.015%0.0124697%
City Mill Valley Marin 0.020%0.0168401%
City Novato Marin 0.028%0.0229824%
City San Anselmo Marin 0.009%0.0078062%
City San Rafael Marin 0.089%0.0729823%
County Mariposa County Mariposa 0.084%0.103%0.0876131%
County Mendocino County Mendocino 0.439%0.536%0.4558394%
City Ukiah Mendocino 0.039%0.0317153%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
County Merced County Merced 0.551%0.674%0.5724262%
City Atwater Merced 0.024%0.0195846%
City Livingston Merced 0.006%0.0045873%
City Los Banos Merced 0.020%0.0165142%
City Merced Merced 0.061%0.0500762%
County Modoc County Modoc 0.065%0.080%0.0678250%
County Mono County Mono 0.023%0.029%0.0242606%
County Monterey County Monterey 0.908%1.111%0.9437083%
City Greenfield Monterey 0.006%0.0050552%
City King City Monterey 0.005%0.0037355%
City Marina Monterey 0.017%0.0144098%
City Monterey Monterey 0.041%0.0336540%
City Pacific Grove Monterey 0.009%0.0074842%
City Salinas Monterey 0.094%0.0776576%
City Seaside Monterey 0.023%0.0191772%
City Soledad Monterey 0.007%0.0060870%
Page 78 of 184
APPENDIX 1
7 of
County Napa County Napa 0.288%0.352%0.2994325%
City American Canyon Napa 0.017%0.0136869%
City Napa Napa 0.078%0.0642783%
County Nevada County Nevada 0.441%0.539%0.4579827%
City Grass Valley Nevada 0.024%0.0197805%
City Truckee Nevada 0.003%0.0023843%
County Orange County Orange 4.364%5.339%4.5363576%
City Aliso Viejo Orange 0.014%0.0113841%
City Anaheim Orange 0.554%0.678%0.5759282%
City Brea Orange 0.086%0.0708897%
City Buena Park Orange 0.087%0.0714352%
City Costa Mesa Orange 0.124%0.152%0.1288366%
City Cypress Orange 0.033%0.0271937%
City Dana Point Orange 0.001%0.0005560%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Fountain Valley Orange 0.055%0.0455980%
City Fullerton Orange 0.137%0.168%0.1425744%
City Garden Grove Orange 0.213%0.1752482%
City Huntington Beach Orange 0.247%0.302%0.2568420%
City Irvine Orange 0.139%0.170%0.1442350%
City Laguna Beach Orange 0.047%0.058%0.0493043%
City Laguna Hills Orange 0.014%0.0115457%
City Laguna Niguel Orange 0.001%0.0007071%
City Laguna Woods Orange 0.001%0.0006546%
City La Habra Orange 0.060%0.073%0.0621049%
City Lake Forest Orange 0.012%0.0101249%
City La Palma Orange 0.012%0.0095439%
City Los Alamitos Orange 0.008%0.0069190%
City Mission Viejo Orange 0.014%0.0117560%
City Newport Beach Orange 0.179%0.1470134%
City Orange Orange 0.150%0.1231320%
City Placentia Orange 0.029%0.035%0.0298912%
City Rancho Santa Margarita Orange 0.001%0.0006296%
City San Clemente Orange 0.008%0.010%0.0086083%
Page 79 of 184
APPENDIX 1
8 of 1
City San Juan Capistrano Orange 0.008%0.0065510%
City Santa Ana Orange 0.502%0.614%0.5213866%
City Seal Beach Orange 0.020%0.0165891%
City Stanton Orange 0.035%0.0291955%
City Tustin Orange 0.073%0.0600341%
City Westminster Orange 0.104%0.127%0.1082721%
City Yorba Linda Orange 0.044%0.0362223%
County Placer County Placer 1.045%1.278%1.0861002%
City Auburn Placer 0.017%0.0141114%
City Lincoln Placer 0.031%0.0255599%
City Rocklin Placer 0.076%0.0625485%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Roseville Placer 0.196%0.1616559%
County Plumas County Plumas 0.205%0.251%0.2128729%
County Riverside County Riverside 4.534%5.547%4.7128296%
City Banning Riverside 0.017%0.0143848%
City Beaumont Riverside 0.021%0.0171135%
City Blythe Riverside 0.012%0.0096714%
City Canyon Lake Riverside 0.000%0.0001761%
City Cathedral City Riverside 0.067%0.0553614%
City Coachella Riverside 0.021%0.0173054%
City Corona Riverside 0.147%0.1207083%
City Desert Hot Springs Riverside 0.024%0.0200433%
City Eastvale Riverside 0.000%0.0002747%
City Hemet Riverside 0.051%0.0421792%
City Indio Riverside 0.056%0.0457794%
City Jurupa Valley Riverside 0.001%0.0008991%
City Lake Elsinore Riverside 0.021%0.0172949%
City La Quinta Riverside 0.063%0.0516732%
City Menifee Riverside 0.032%0.0260909%
City Moreno Valley Riverside 0.137%0.1130348%
City Murrieta Riverside 0.048%0.059%0.0497423%
City Norco Riverside 0.016%0.0134542%
City Palm Desert Riverside 0.083%0.0682465%
Page 80 of 184
APPENDIX 1
9 of 1
City Palm Springs Riverside 0.076%0.0629862%
City Perris Riverside 0.009%0.0076774%
City Rancho Mirage Riverside 0.052%0.0431098%
City Riverside Riverside 0.268%0.2206279%
City San Jacinto Riverside 0.010%0.0085936%
City Temecula Riverside 0.022%0.0180086%
City Wildomar Riverside 0.008%0.0062500%
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797%4.645%3.9465887%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Citrus Heights Sacramento 0.057%0.0465312%
City Elk Grove Sacramento 0.130%0.1066994%
City Folsom Sacramento 0.108%0.0890850%
City Galt Sacramento 0.017%0.0143704%
City Rancho Cordova Sacramento 0.008%0.0067679%
City Sacramento Sacramento 0.721%0.882%0.7496530%
County San Benito County San Benito 0.106%0.130%0.1101417%
City Hollister San Benito 0.027%0.0225355%
County San Bernardino County San Bernardino 3.259%3.987%3.3878124%
City Adelanto San Bernardino 0.008%0.0066640%
City Apple Valley San Bernardino 0.025%0.0207360%
City Barstow San Bernardino 0.015%0.0122056%
City Chino San Bernardino 0.064%0.0525893%
City Chino Hills San Bernardino 0.001%0.0006388%
City Colton San Bernardino 0.031%0.0253443%
City Fontana San Bernardino 0.112%0.0920543%
City Grand Terrace San Bernardino 0.006%0.0051051%
City Hesperia San Bernardino 0.035%0.0291522%
City Highland San Bernardino 0.004%0.0029061%
City Loma Linda San Bernardino 0.009%0.0071188%
City Montclair San Bernardino 0.039%0.0322108%
City Ontario San Bernardino 0.179%0.1472934%
City Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 0.084%0.0689431%
City Redlands San Bernardino 0.057%0.0469150%
City Rialto San Bernardino 0.073%0.0603206%
Page 81 of 184
APPENDIX 1
10 of
City San Bernardino San Bernardino 0.178%0.1461880%
City Twentynine Palms San Bernardino 0.002%0.0012605%
City Upland San Bernardino 0.052%0.0424460%
City Victorville San Bernardino 0.033%0.0269400%
City Yucaipa San Bernardino 0.016%0.0128772%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Yucca Valley San Bernardino 0.003%0.0021228%
County San Diego County San Diego 5.706%6.980%5.9309748%
City Carlsbad San Diego 0.128%0.1050485%
City Chula Vista San Diego 0.189%0.231%0.1961456%
City Coronado San Diego 0.044%0.0359095%
City El Cajon San Diego 0.113%0.0933582%
City Encinitas San Diego 0.061%0.074%0.0630289%
City Escondido San Diego 0.145%0.1192204%
City Imperial Beach San Diego 0.014%0.0118283%
City La Mesa San Diego 0.055%0.068%0.0575593%
City Lemon Grove San Diego 0.022%0.0183911%
City National City San Diego 0.080%0.0656808%
City Oceanside San Diego 0.213%0.1753428%
City Poway San Diego 0.062%0.0511040%
City San Diego San Diego 1.975%2.416%2.0531169%
City San Marcos San Diego 0.089%0.0733897%
City Santee San Diego 0.033%0.0268401%
City Solana Beach San Diego 0.017%0.0138564%
City Vista San Diego 0.052%0.0425144%
Consolidated San Francisco San Francisco 3.026%3.702%3.1457169%
County San Joaquin County San Joaquin 1.680%2.055%1.7460399%
City Lathrop San Joaquin 0.009%0.0075394%
City Lodi San Joaquin 0.053%0.0439484%
City Manteca San Joaquin 0.054%0.0443454%
City Ripon San Joaquin 0.013%0.0104219%
City Stockton San Joaquin 0.313%0.383%0.3256176%
City Tracy San Joaquin 0.084%0.0692047%
County San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo 0.816%0.999%0.8484126%
Page 82 of 184
APPENDIX 1
11 of 1
City Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 0.024%0.0199053%
City Atascadero San Luis Obispo 0.029%0.0240680%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles)San Luis Obispo 0.043%0.0353456%
City Grover Beach San Luis Obispo 0.017%0.0137881%
City Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 0.020%0.0160922%
City San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 0.077%0.0637841%
County San Mateo County San Mateo 1.074%1.313%1.1159599%
City Belmont San Mateo 0.021%0.0169860%
City Burlingame San Mateo 0.019%0.0152537%
City Daly City San Mateo 0.044%0.0363880%
City East Palo Alto San Mateo 0.013%0.0103982%
City Foster City San Mateo 0.020%0.0166101%
City Half Moon Bay San Mateo 0.004%0.0031638%
City Hillsborough San Mateo 0.013%0.0110029%
City Menlo Park San Mateo 0.015%0.0126209%
City Millbrae San Mateo 0.013%0.0105836%
City Pacifica San Mateo 0.016%0.0130625%
City Redwood City San Mateo 0.056%0.0463511%
City San Bruno San Mateo 0.021%0.0172161%
City San Carlos San Mateo 0.013%0.0108885%
City San Mateo San Mateo 0.052%0.0425841%
City South San Francisco San Mateo 0.043%0.0353943%
County Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara 1.132%1.385%1.1768968%
City Carpinteria Santa Barbara 0.001%0.0008938%
City Goleta Santa Barbara 0.004%0.0028969%
City Lompoc Santa Barbara 0.047%0.0389379%
City Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 0.122%0.1004559%
City Santa Maria Santa Barbara 0.058%0.0479179%
County Santa Clara County Santa Clara 2.404%2.941%2.4987553%
City Campbell Santa Clara 0.014%0.0112566%
City Cupertino Santa Clara 0.008%0.0066824%
City Gilroy Santa Clara 0.025%0.0202891%
Page 83 of 184
APPENDIX 1
12 of 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Los Altos Santa Clara 0.013%0.0103338%
City Los Gatos Santa Clara 0.013%0.0103220%
City Milpitas Santa Clara 0.036%0.0298120%
City Morgan Hill Santa Clara 0.015%0.0124619%
City Mountain View Santa Clara 0.041%0.0334608%
City Palo Alto Santa Clara 0.039%0.0323080%
City San Jose Santa Clara 0.294%0.360%0.3054960%
City Santa Clara Santa Clara 0.067%0.0549723%
City Saratoga Santa Clara 0.004%0.0034161%
City Sunnyvale Santa Clara 0.053%0.0434069%
County Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz 0.783%0.957%0.8135396%
City Capitola Santa Cruz 0.020%0.0168191%
City Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 0.143%0.1180348%
City Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 0.015%0.0126525%
City Watsonville Santa Cruz 0.063%0.0520136%
County Shasta County Shasta 1.095%1.339%1.1380191%
City Anderson Shasta 0.024%0.0198896%
City Redding Shasta 0.284%0.2334841%
City Shasta Lake Shasta 0.004%0.0031993%
County Siskiyou County Siskiyou 0.228%0.279%0.2373393%
County Solano County Solano 0.760%0.6260795%
City Benicia Solano 0.031%0.0253903%
City Dixon Solano 0.016%0.0130849%
City Fairfield Solano 0.109%0.0897317%
City Suisun City Solano 0.021%0.0176183%
City Vacaville Solano 0.119%0.0976497%
City Vallejo Solano 0.167%0.1373644%
County Sonoma County Sonoma 1.218%1.490%1.2661290%
City Healdsburg Sonoma 0.032%0.0266929%
City Petaluma Sonoma 0.081%0.0667507%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
Page 84 of 184
APPENDIX 1
13 of
City Rohnert Park Sonoma 0.041%0.0340759%
City Santa Rosa Sonoma 0.184%0.1519070%
City Sonoma Sonoma 0.022%0.0183438%
City Windsor Sonoma 0.016%0.0129298%
County Stanislaus County Stanislaus 1.722%1.4182273%
City Ceres Stanislaus 0.041%0.0340260%
City Modesto Stanislaus 0.217%0.1788759%
City Newman Stanislaus 0.006%0.0046964%
City Oakdale Stanislaus 0.018%0.0145531%
City Patterson Stanislaus 0.015%0.0126590%
City Riverbank Stanislaus 0.010%0.0085699%
City Turlock Stanislaus 0.065%0.0531966%
County Sutter County Sutter 0.306%0.374%0.3179548%
City Yuba City Sutter 0.074%0.0606242%
County Tehama County Tehama 0.213%0.261%0.2216654%
City Red Bluff Tehama 0.014%0.0117771%
County Trinity County Trinity 0.082%0.101%0.0855476%
County Tulare County Tulare 0.809%0.990%0.8410949%
City Dinuba Tulare 0.014%0.0116929%
City Exeter Tulare 0.004%0.0032479%
City Farmersville Tulare 0.003%0.0027879%
City Lindsay Tulare 0.007%0.0057111%
City Porterville Tulare 0.021%0.0171845%
City Tulare Tulare 0.037%0.0302273%
City Visalia Tulare 0.066%0.0545872%
County Tuolumne County Tuolumne 0.486%0.594%0.5047621%
County Ventura County Ventura 2.192%2.681%2.2781201%
City Camarillo Ventura 0.002%0.0012815%
City Fillmore Ventura 0.002%0.0020294%
City Moorpark Ventura 0.008%0.0067337%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156%0.190%0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021%0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura)Ventura 0.085%0.0702181%
Page 85 of 184
APPENDIX 1
14 of
City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014%0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065%0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022%0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357%0.437%0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055%0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066%0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058%0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214%0.262%0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014%0.0112079%
Page 86 of 184
1
APPENDIX 2
Cost Reimbursement Procedure
1.Additional defined terms:
a)Costs means the reasonable amounts paid for the attorney and other City Attorney and
County Counsel staff time for individuals employed by a Plaintiff Subdivision at the
contractual rate, inclusive of benefits and overhead, together with amounts paid for court
reporters, experts, copying, electronic research, travel, vendors, and the like, which were
not previously reimbursed and which were paid or incurred (i) prior to December 31,
2022 in litigation against any Opioid Defendant and/or (ii) in negotiating and drafting
any CA Allocation Agreement(s) concerning a settlement with any Opioid Defendant(s).
Costs does not include attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses incurred by private contingency
fee counsel. No part of the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be used to reimburse
Costs.
b)First Claims Date means October 1, 2023 or when all applications for reimbursement of
Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section IX and Exhibit R of the
Walgreens Settlement Agreement, Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement
Agreement, Section XIII and Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X
and Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, Section XI and Exhibit R of the
Janssen Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement
Agreement, or Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, have
been finally determined under the provisions of those agreements, whichever comes first.
c)Special Master means a retired judicial officer or former public lawyer, not presently
employed or retained by a Plaintiff Subdivision, who will aggregate, review, and
determine the reasonable Costs to be awarded to each Plaintiff Subdivision that submits a
claim for reimbursement of Costs. The Special Master will be selected by a majority vote
of the votes cast by Plaintiff Subdivisions, with each such subdivision having one vote.
d)Plaintiff Subdivision Committee means the committee of Plaintiff Subdivisions that will
review and approve the invoices submitted by the Special Master reflecting his or her
reasonable time and expenses.
2.Cost Reimbursement to Plaintiff Subdivision
a)Purpose. Substantial resources have been expended to hold Opioid Defendants
accountable for creating and profiting from the opioid crisis, and this effort has been a
significant catalyst in creating National Opioid Settlements with various manufacturers,
distributors, and chain pharmacies.
///
Page 87 of 184
2
b)Claims Procedure.
i.If a Plaintiff Subdivision is eligible to seek reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in
part, from funds available under Section IX and Exhibit R of the Kroger Settlement
Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement,
Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement, Section XIII and
Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the
CVS Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement
Agreement, Section X or Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, or
Section XI or Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, it must first make a
timely application for reimbursement from such funds. To allow sufficient time for
determination of those applications, no claim for Costs to the CA Subdivision
Fund under this Agreement may be made before the First Claims Date.
ii.A Plaintiff Subdivision that wishes to be reimbursed from the CA Subdivision Fund
must submit a claim to the Special Master no later than forty-five (45) days after the
First Claims Date. The Special Master will then compile and redistribute the
aggregated claim totals for each Plaintiff Subdivision via email to representatives of
all the Plaintiff Subdivisions. A claim for attorney and staff time must list, for each
attorney or staff member included in the claim, the following information: name,
title, total hours claimed, hourly rate (including, if sought, benefits and share of
overhead), and narrative summarizing the general nature of the work performed by
the attorney or staff member. For reimbursement of “hard” costs, the subdivision
may aggregate across a category (e.g., total for travel costs). It is the intention of the
Plaintiff Subdivisions that submission of documents related to reimbursement of
Costs does not waive any attorney-client privilege or exemptions to the California
Public Records Act.
iii.The Special Master may request, at his or her sole option, additional documents or
details to assist in the final award of Costs.
iv.The Special Master will review claims for reasonableness and will notify each
Plaintiff Subdivision of the final determination of its claim, and will provide a list of
all final awards to all Plaintiff Subdivisions by email or, upon request, via First
Class U.S. Mail. Any Plaintiff Subdivision may ask the Special Master to reconsider
any final award within twenty-one (21) days. The Special Master will make a final
determination on any such reconsideration request within thirty (30) days of receipt.
v.Any decision of the Special Master is final and binding, and will be considered
under the California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq.
as a final arbitration award. Nothing in this agreement is intended to expand the
scope of judicial review of the final award for errors of fact or law, and the Parties
agree that they may only seek to vacate the award if clear and convincing evidence
demonstrates one of the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1286.2,
subdivision (a). Plaintiff Subdivisions will have fourteen (14) days after all final
awards are made, together with any final determination of a request for
Page 88 of 184
3
reconsideration, to seek review in the Superior Court of California, pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure, section 1285, where the State has filed its Consent Judgment.
vi.The Special Master will prepare a report of Costs that includes his or her fees and
expenses at least ninety (90) days before the Payment Date for each Annual
Payment. The Special Master’s preparation of a report of Costs does not discharge a
Plaintiff Subdivision’s reporting requirement under Section V(B)(2) of the Kroger
Settlement Agreement.
vii.A member of the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee, which is a CA Participating
Subdivision, will submit to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Kroger a report
of the fees and expenses incurred by the Special Master pursuant to Section V(B)(2)
of the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
c)Claims Priority and Limitation.
i.The Special Master will submit invoices for compensation of reasonable fees and
expenses to the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee no later than ninety (90) days prior
to the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee
will promptly review and, if reasonable, approve the Special Master’s invoice for
compensation. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will submit approved invoices
to the Settlement Fund Administrator for payment. The Special Master’s approved
invoices have priority and will be paid first from the CA Subdivision Fund before
any award of Costs, subject to the limitation in Section 2.c.v below.
ii.Final Awards of Costs that do not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars
($75,000.00) will be paid next in priority after the Special Master’s approved
invoices.
iii.Final Awards of Costs in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will
be paid proportionally from the funds remaining in that year’s Annual Payment.
iv.Any claim for Costs that is not paid in full will be allocated against the next year’s
distribution from the CA Subdivision Fund, until all approved claims for Costs are
paid in full.
v.In no event will more than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any
year be used to pay Costs or the Special Master’s approved invoices.
vi.In no event shall more than $28 million of the total CA Subdivision Funds paid
pursuant to the Kroger Settlement Agreement, Walgreens Settlement Agreement,
Teva Settlement Agreement, Allergan Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement
Agreement, CVS Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement Agreement, and the
Walmart Settlement Agreement be used to pay Costs.
Page 89 of 184
4
d)Collateral Source Payments and Third-Party Settlement.
i.In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision is awarded compensation, in whole or in part, by
any source of funds created as a result of litigation against an Opioid Defendant for
its reasonable Costs, it will reduce its claim for Costs from the CA Subdivision
Fund by that amount. If a Plaintiff Subdivision has already received a final award of
Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund, it will repay the fund up to the prior award of
Costs via a payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator or notify the Settlement
Fund Administrator that its allocation from the next and subsequent Annual
Payments should be reduced accordingly. If the Plaintiff Subdivision is repaying
any prior award of Costs, that repayment will occur as soon as is feasible after the
Plaintiff Subdivision’s receipt of Cost funds from the collateral source, but no more
than 90 days after its receipt from the collateral source. The Settlement Fund
Administrator will add any repaid Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund. Any Plaintiff
Subdivision that has submitted for reimbursement to any national fund and has not
received a final determination by the First Claims Date may request that the
settlement administrator withhold some or all of its payment from the CA
Subdivision Fund in order to avoid repayment.
ii.In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision reaches a monetary settlement or compromise
against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement, the
monetary portion of such settlement, net of fees paid to outside contingency fee
counsel and of funds earmarked strictly for abatement, will be credited against its
Costs and the subdivision will be ineligible to recover those credited Costs from the
CA Subdivision Fund. Plaintiff Subdivisions negotiating monetary settlements or
compromises against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid
Settlement will negotiate for funds to repay any Costs it previously received from
the CA Subdivision Fund or for Costs it otherwise might be eligible to claim from
the CA Subdivision Fund. If such a settlement is paid after all final approved claims
for Costs by all Plaintiff Subdivisions are satisfied in full, the settling subdivision
will reimburse the CA Subdivision Fund in that amount by making payment to the
Settlement Fund Administrator to add to the CA Subdivision Fund in a manner
consistent with the repayments described in section 2.d.i above.
Page 90 of 184
1
APPENDIX 3
CALIFORNIA-SUBDIVISION BACKSTOP AGREEMENT
On August 6, 2021, Judge Polster of the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
issued an Order (the Order), docket number 3814, in In Re National Prescription Opiate
Litigation, MDL 2804, addressing contingent attorney fee contracts between political
subdivisions eligible to participate in the Kroger Settlement and their counsel.
In light of the Order, and at the request of [SUBDIVISION], the [SUBDIVISION], its counsel
[COUNSEL], and the California Attorney General, on behalf of the State of California, are
entering into this California-Subdivision Backstop Agreement (Backstop Agreement).
[SUBDIVISION] and [COUNSEL] intend this Backstop Agreement to constitute a State Back-
Stop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’
Fees, Costs, and Expenses) of the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the
Kroger Settlement Agreement and CA Kroger Allocation Agreement, as well as any other
limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Kroger Settlement CA
Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from
[SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL], together with any contingency fees that [COUNSEL] may
receive from the national Attorney Fee Fund, will not exceed a total contingency fee of
[PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED 15%] of the total gross recovery of [SUBDIVISION] from
the Kroger Settlement.
[COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created
under the Kroger Settlement Agreement before seeking or accepting payment under this
backstop agreement. [COUNSEL] further certify that they are not seeking and will not accept
payment under this backstop agreement of any litigation fees or costs that have been reimbursed
through prior settlements or judgments.
The Attorney General is executing this agreement solely because the definition of “State Back-
Stop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Kroger Settlement Agreement requires such agreements to
be between “a Settling State” and private counsel for a participating subdivision. Neither the
California Attorney General nor the State of California have any obligations under this Backstop
Agreement, and this Backstop Agreement does not require the payment of any state funds to
[SUBDIVISION], [COUNSEL], or any other party.
[DATE][SUBDIVISION SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE][COUNSEL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE][ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
Page 91 of 184
BY E-MAIL
2001 M Street, NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
+1 202 682 7000 tel
+1 202 857 0940 fax
March 28, 2024
Chantale Fiebig
+1 (202) 682-7200
Chantale.Fiebig@weil.com
David Jones
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Healthcare Rights & Access Section
Department of Justice
1300 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 210-7861
Email: David.Jones@doj.ca.gov
Re: Kroger Opioids Settlement Agreement
Dear Mr. Jones:
This letter summarizes the agreement reached between Kroger and the State of California regarding the
multistate Kroger Settlement Agreement dated March 22, 2024 regarding opioid claims by states and
subdivisions (the "Multistate Kroger Settlement Agreement").
The Kroger Co. and all of its direct and indirect subsidiaries ("Kroger"), and the State of California, by
and through its Attorney General Rob Bonta, have agreed to the following modification to the Multistate
Kroger Settlement Agreement in its application to California. For the avoidance of doubt, the limited
modification set forth below applies only to California and to no other state or territory.
The “Prescription Red Flag” described in Section IX(5)(a) of Exhibit P to the Multistate Kroger Settlement
Agreement is modified in its entirety to read as follows:
A Controlled Substance prescription fails to meet the requirements of law. For the sake of
clarity, minor deficiencies in the patient’s name, address, date of birth, or contact
information are not a red flag if the pharmacist, in his or her professional judgment and
usual course of practice, is able to resolve these deficiencies with the patient.
This limited California-specific modification was a necessary condition for California's decision to sign-
on as a participating state to the Multistate Kroger Settlement Agreement.
For the avoidance of doubt, all other terms and provisions in the Multistate Kroger Settlement Agreement
remain the same, including without limitation all “Prescription Red Flags” not specified above, all
Page 92 of 184
David Jones
March 28, 2024
Page 2
definitions, all release provisions, the eleven-year-payment schedule and all other terms and provisions of
the payment schedule, and all other terms and provisions.
These terms and this letter shall be included in a stipulated judgment to be filed in a Superior Court in the
State of California.
Sincerely,
Chantale Fiebig
Counsel for The Kroger Co.
SO AGREED BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
________________________________
Name: David A. Jones
Title: Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Date: March 29, 2024
Page 93 of 184
Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Kroger Settlement
1.Introduction
Pursuant to the Kroger Settlement Agreement, dated as of March 22, 2024, and any revision
thereto as well as any modification thereto entered into by the State of California and Kroger (the
“Kroger Settlement Agreement”), including Section V and Exhibit O, the State of California
proposes this agreement (the “CA Kroger Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation,
distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections IV
and V of the Kroger Settlement Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not
apply to payments made pursuant to Section IX of the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Kroger Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA
Kroger Allocation Agreement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision.
2.Definitions
a)CA Participating Subdivision means a Participating Subdivision that is also (a) a
Plaintiff Subdivision and/or (b) a Primary Subdivision with a population equal to or
greater than 10,000. For the avoidance of doubt, eligible CA Participating
Subdivisions are those California subdivisions listed in Exhibit C (excluding
Litigating Special Districts) and/or Exhibit I to the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
b)Allergan Settlement Agreement means the Allergan Settlement Agreement dated
November 22, 2022, and any revision thereto.
c)CVS Settlement Agreement means the CVS Settlement Agreement dated December 9,
2022, and any revision thereto as well as any modification thereto entered into by the
State of California and CVS.
d)Distributor Settlement Agreement means the Distributor Settlement Agreement dated
July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
e)Janssen Settlement Agreement means the Janssen Settlement Agreement dated July
21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
f)Teva Settlement Agreement means the Teva Settlement Agreement dated November
22, 2022, and any revision thereto.
g)Walgreens Settlement Agreement means the Walgreens Settlement Agreement dated
December 9, 2022, and any revision thereto.
h)Walmart Settlement Agreement means the Walmart Settlement Agreement dated
November 14, 2022, and any revision thereto.
i)CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in
California. CA Litigating Special Districts include Downey Unified School District,
1
EXHIBIT B
Page 94 of 184
Elk Grove Unified School District, Kern High School District, Montezuma Fire
Protection District (located in Stockton, California), Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo
Regional Health Authority, Inland Empire Health Plan, Health Plan of San Joaquin,
San Leandro Unified School District, Pleasant Valley School District Board, and LA
Care Health Plan.
j) Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a CA
Litigating Special District, that filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Subdivision and/or
through an official of the Subdivision on behalf of the People of the State of
California, against one or more Opioid Defendants prior to October 1, 2020.
k) Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to Kroger Co.,
Walgreen Co., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan
Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walmart Inc., Johnson &
Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc.,
AmerisourceBergen Corporation, and McKesson Corporation) named in a lawsuit
seeking damages, abatement, or other remedies related to or caused by the opioid
public health crisis in any lawsuit brought by any state or local government on or
before October 1, 2020.
3. General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Kroger Settlement Agreement, as well as
applicable law, and the Kroger Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of
this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement
have the same meaning as in the Kroger Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.
Pursuant to Section V(D)(1) of the Kroger Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund
payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section V(B)(2) of the
Kroger Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund
payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.
4. State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California,1 pursuant to the Kroger Settlement Agreement,
shall be allocated as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and
15% to the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from
the Settlement Fund shall be combined pursuant to this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement, and
15% of that total shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California
Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts
Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”).
1 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of
California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of
California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.
2 Page 95 of 184
A. State of California Allocation
Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the State and used by
the State for future Opioid Remediation.
B. CA Abatement Accounts Fund
i. Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) Seventy percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA
Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be
allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed
negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as
adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or
litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA
Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in
Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For
the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and
counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA
Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its
Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision,
and will receive payments as provided in the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
c) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share
as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation
share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which
the city is located, rather than to the city, so long as: (a) the county is a CA Participating
Subdivision, and (b) the city did not elect to receive its share of funds in the National
Opioids Settlement with Distributors AmerisourceBergenCorporation, Cardinal Health,
Inc., and McKesson Corporation (the “Distributors Settlement”). If a city later changes or
has already changed its distribution election in the Distributors Settlement, that change in
election will apply here, provided that the change in election is received by the settlement
administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. A Local Allocation share allocated
to a city but paid to a county is not required to be spent exclusively for abatement
activities in that city, but will become part of the county’s share of the CA Abatement
Accounts Funds, which will be used in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Use of CA
Abatement Accounts Funds) and reported on in accordance with Section 4.B.iii (CA
Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight).
d) A city within a county that is a CA Participating Subdivision may opt in or out of direct
payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share,
with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the Settlement Fund
Administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. For purposes of this CA Kroger
Allocation Agreement, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and
3 Page 96 of 184
Eureka will be deemed to have elected direct payment if they become Participating
Subdivisions.
e) The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund
that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating
Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund,
become a Participating Subdivision.
f) Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered
within five years of receipt and in accordance with the Kroger Settlement Agreement and
this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided
however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA
Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must
be transferred to the State. This provision shall not apply to the Cost Reimbursement
Funds, which shall be controlled by Appendix 2.
ii. Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) The CA Abatement Accounts Funds will be used for future Opioid Remediation in one or
more of the areas described in the List of Opioid Remediation Uses, which is Exhibit E to
the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
b) In addition to this requirement, no less than 50% of the funds received by a CA
Participating Subdivision from the Abatement Accounts Fund in each calendar year will
be used for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities:
(1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities
within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program;
(2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure;
(3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including
sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted
by SUD;
(4) diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by
providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non-sworn)
and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection, employability,
restorative justice, and harm reduction;
(5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth, including but not limited
to, youth in foster care, juvenile justice-impacted youth, youth experiencing
adversities related to socioeconomic status, and unhoused youth; and/or
(6) the purchase of naloxone for distribution and efforts to expand access to naloxone for
opioid overdose reversals.
4 Page 97 of 184
c) The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) may add to this list (but
not delete from it) by designating additional High Impact Abatement Activities. DHCS
will make reasonable efforts to consult with stakeholders, including the CA Participating
Subdivisions, before adding additional High Impact Abatement Activities to this list.
d) For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the Kroger Settlement
Agreement and applicable law, CA Participating Subdivisions may form agreements or
ventures, or otherwise work in collaboration with, federal, state, local, tribal or private
sector entities in pursuing Opioid Remediation activities funded from the CA Abatement
Accounts Fund. Further, provided that all CA Abatement Accounts Funds are used for
Opioid Remediation consistent with the Kroger Settlement Agreement and this CA
Kroger Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may
agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among
themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating
Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being
reallocated.
iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds
must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may
regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of
CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Kroger Settlement Agreement
and this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement
Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Kroger Settlement Agreement or this CA Kroger
Allocation Agreement, whether through review of reports or information from any other
sources, DHCS shall send a request to meet and confer with the CA Participating
Subdivision. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the concern.
c) If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, DHCS may conduct an audit of the
Subdivision’s use of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds within one year of the request to
meet and confer, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the meet and
confer time frame.
d) If the concern still cannot be resolved, the State may bring a motion or action in the court
where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to resolve the concern or otherwise
enforce the requirements of the Kroger Settlement Agreement or this CA Kroger
Allocation Agreement. However, in no case shall any audit be conducted, or motion be
brought, as to a specific expenditure of funds, more than five years after the date on
which the expenditure of the funds was reported to DHCS, in accordance with this
agreement.
5 Page 98 of 184
e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement does not limit the statutory or
constitutional authority of any state or local agency or official to conduct audits,
investigations, or other oversight activities, or to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal
enforcement actions.
C. CA Subdivision Fund
i. Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA
Subdivision Fund. All funds in the CA Subdivision Fund will be allocated among the
Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. The funds will be used,
subject to any limits imposed by the Kroger Settlement Agreement and this CA Kroger
Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioid-
related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation, and to pay
the reasonable fees and expenses of the Special Master as set forth in Appendix 2.
The CA Subdivision Funds will be allocated as follows:
a) First, funds in the CA Subdivision Fund shall be used to pay the Special Master’s
reasonable fees and expenses in accordance with the procedures and limitations set
forth in Appendix 2 to this document;
b) Second, funds will be allocated to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating
Subdivisions that have been awarded Costs, as defined by and in accordance with the
procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document.
c) Funds remaining in the CA Subdivision Fund, which shall consist of no less than 50%
of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year pursuant to Appendix 2,
Section 2.c.v, will be distributed to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating
Subdivisions, in relative proportion to the Local Allocation. These funds shall be used
to fund future opioid-related projects and to reimburse past opioid-related expenses,
which may include fees and expenses related to litigation against any Opioid
Defendant.
D. Provision for State Back-Stop Agreement
On August 6, 2021, Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, issued an order (ECF Docket Number 3814) (“MDL Fees Order”) in the
National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) “cap[ping] all applicable contingent fee
agreements at 15%.” Private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions should seek its
contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds under the Kroger
Settlement Agreement, and, if applicable, the Teva Settlement Agreement, Allergan Settlement
Agreement, CVS Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement
Agreement, and Walmart Settlement Agreement.
A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay
for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”),
6 Page 99 of 184
pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(CC), of the Kroger Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees
Order, so long as such contingency fees do not exceed a total contingency fee of 15% of the total
gross recovery of the Plaintiff Subdivision pursuant to the Kroger Settlement, inclusive of
contingency fees from the national Attorney Fee Fund and this State Back-Stop Agreement.
Before seeking fees or litigation costs and expenses from a State Back-Stop Agreement, private
counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions must first seek contingency fees and costs from the
Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds created under the Kroger Settlement Agreement. Further,
private counsel may only seek reimbursement for litigation fees and costs that have not
previously been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
To effectuate a State Back-Stop Agreement pursuant to this section, an agreement in the form of
Appendix 3 may be entered into by a Plaintiff Subdivision, private counsel, and the California
Office of the Attorney General. The California Office of the Attorney General shall, upon the
request of a Plaintiff Subdivision, execute any agreement executed by a Plaintiff Subdivision and
its private counsel if it is in the form of Appendix 3. The California Office of the Attorney
General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into
agreements presented in other forms.
For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or
enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any
duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without
limitation the Attorney General.
5. State and Subdivision Reporting
a) DHCS will prepare an annual written report regarding the State’s use of funds from the
settlement until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports
will be made publicly available on the DHCS web site.
b) Each CA Participating Subdivision that receives payments of funds from the settlement
will prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds, until those
funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will also include a
certification that all funds that the CA Participating Subdivision has received through the
settlement have been used in compliance with the Kroger Settlement Agreement and this
CA Kroger Allocation Agreement. The report will be in a form reasonably determined
by DHCS. Prior to specifying the form of the report DHCS will confer with
representatives of the Plaintiff Subdivisions.
c) The State and all CA Participating Subdivisions receiving CA Abatement Accounts
Funds will track all deposits and expenditures. Each such subdivision is responsible
solely for the CA Abatement Accounts Funds it receives. A county is not responsible for
oversight, reporting, or monitoring of CA Abatement Accounts Funds received by a city
within that county that receives direct payment. Unless otherwise exempt, Subdivisions’
expenditures and uses of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and other Settlement Funds will
be subject to the normal budgetary and expenditure process of the Subdivision.
7 Page 100 of 184
d) Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and
expenditures, as required by the Kroger Settlement Agreement and this CA Kroger
Allocation Agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff Subdivisions using monies from
the CA Subdivision Fund for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation must
identify and include in their annual report, the amount and how such funds were used,
including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs. Pursuant
to Section V(B)(2) of the Kroger Settlement Agreement, such information must also be
reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Kroger.
e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to
discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the
State and Participating Subdivisions.
6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court
where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA
Kroger Allocation Agreement. Before filing such a motion or action the State will meet
and confer with any CA Participating Subdivision that is the subject of the anticipated
motion or action, and vice versa.
b) Except as provided in the Kroger Settlement Agreement, this CA Kroger Allocation
Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating
Subdivisions. It does not confer any rights or remedies upon, and shall not be
enforceable by, any third party.
c) Except as provided in the CA Kroger Allocation Agreement, if any provision of this
agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any
extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement, or the application of
such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which it is
invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this
agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
d) Except as provided in the Kroger Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be
governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.
8 Page 101 of 184
APPENDIX 1 DISCLAIMER: The allocation percentages herein are estimates only and should not be relied on for decisions regarding legal rights, releases, waivers, or other decisions affecting current or potential legal claims. Percentages shown in the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage column may change pursuant to Section 4.C. of the California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds—Kroger Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change. Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change. Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C. Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage. Page 102 of 184
APPENDIX 1 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage County Alameda County Alameda 2.332% 2.853% 2.4237952% City Alameda Alameda 0.069% 0.0570162% City Albany Alameda 0.013% 0.0107768% City Berkeley Alameda 0.152% 0.1249656% City Dublin Alameda 0.033% 0.040% 0.0338810% City Emeryville Alameda 0.023% 0.0185765% City Fremont Alameda 0.108% 0.0888576% City Hayward Alameda 0.117% 0.0966218% City Livermore Alameda 0.054% 0.0446740% City Newark Alameda 0.026% 0.0217626% City Oakland Alameda 0.486% 0.595% 0.5055601% City Piedmont Alameda 0.014% 0.0114064% City Pleasanton Alameda 0.067% 0.0554547% City San Leandro Alameda 0.039% 0.0321267% City Union City Alameda 0.043% 0.0352484% County Amador County Amador 0.226% 0.277% 0.2349885% County Butte County Butte 1.615% 1.975% 1.6783178% City Chico Butte 0.216% 0.264% 0.2246499% City Oroville Butte 0.079% 0.0646595% County Calaveras County Calaveras 0.226% 0.277% 0.2351644% County Colusa County Colusa 0.059% 0.0489221% County Contra Costa County Contra Costa 2.102% 2.571% 2.1844585% City Antioch Contra Costa 0.037% 0.0301879% City Brentwood Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0215339% City Clayton Contra Costa 0.002% 0.0018060% City Concord Contra Costa 0.055% 0.0456676% City Danville Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0082255% City El Cerrito Contra Costa 0.023% 0.0189024% City Hercules Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0078273% 1 of 15 Page 103 of 184
APPENDIX 1 Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030% City Martinez Contra Costa 0.012% 0.0098593% City Moraga Contra Costa 0.004% 0.0031007% City Oakley Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0079416% City Orinda Contra Costa 0.005% 0.0038157% City Pinole Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0110909% City Pittsburg Contra Costa 0.053% 0.0436369% City Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0106309% City Richmond Contra Costa 0.146% 0.1201444% City San Pablo Contra Costa 0.018% 0.0148843% City San Ramon Contra Costa 0.021% 0.0176459% City Walnut Creek Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0212132% County Del Norte County Del Norte 0.114% 0.140% 0.1189608% County El Dorado County El Dorado 0.768% 0.939% 0.7980034% City Placerville El Dorado 0.015% 0.0127642% City South Lake Tahoe El Dorado 0.081% 0.0665456% County Fresno County Fresno 1.895% 2.318% 1.9693410% City Clovis Fresno 0.065% 0.0536211% City Coalinga Fresno 0.012% 0.0098554% City Fresno Fresno 0.397% 0.3270605% City Kerman Fresno 0.005% 0.0042534% City Kingsburg Fresno 0.008% 0.0066167% City Mendota Fresno 0.002% 0.0019387% City Orange Cove Fresno 0.004% 0.0035607% City Parlier Fresno 0.008% 0.0069755% City Reedley Fresno 0.012% 0.0098804% City Sanger Fresno 0.018% 0.0146135% City Selma Fresno 0.015% 0.0127537% County Glenn County Glenn 0.107% 0.131% 0.1116978% County Humboldt County Humboldt 1.030% 1.260% 1.0703185% 2 of 15 Page 104 of 184
APPENDIX 1 Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage City Arcata Humboldt 0.054% 0.0447660% City Eureka Humboldt 0.117% 0.143% 0.1216284% City Fortuna Humboldt 0.032% 0.0266837% County Imperial County Imperial 0.258% 0.315% 0.2679006% City Brawley Imperial 0.011% 0.0087986% City Calexico Imperial 0.019% 0.0152799% City El Centro Imperial 0.158% 0.1302522% City Imperial Imperial 0.006% 0.0048791% County Inyo County Inyo 0.073% 0.089% 0.0754413% County Kern County Kern 2.517% 3.079% 2.6159145% City Arvin Kern 0.006% 0.0046425% City Bakersfield Kern 0.212% 0.1747198% City California City Kern 0.009% 0.0070820% City Delano Kern 0.030% 0.0249316% City McFarland Kern 0.003% 0.0025644% City Ridgecrest Kern 0.015% 0.0120938% City Shafter Kern 0.013% 0.0103417% City Tehachapi Kern 0.009% 0.0073580% City Wasco Kern 0.008% 0.0069861% County Kings County Kings 0.293% 0.2413469% City Avenal Kings 0.007% 0.0056335% City Corcoran Kings 0.013% 0.0107032% City Hanford Kings 0.027% 0.0226038% City Lemoore Kings 0.016% 0.0131900% County Lake County Lake 0.795% 0.6545389% City Clearlake Lake 0.041% 0.050% 0.0426253% City Lakeport Lake 0.021% 0.026% 0.0222964% County Lassen County Lassen 0.319% 0.391% 0.3320610% City Susanville Lassen 0.027% 0.0219295% County Los Angeles County Los Angeles 13.896% 16.999% 14.4437559% 3 of 15 Page 105 of 184
APPENDIX 1 Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage City Agoura Hills Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040024% City Alhambra Los Angeles 0.042% 0.0343309% City Arcadia Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0267718% City Artesia Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0005100% City Azusa Los Angeles 0.026% 0.0210857% City Baldwin Park Los Angeles 0.027% 0.0218520% City Bell Los Angeles 0.008% 0.0068783% City Bellflower Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0014485% City Bell Gardens Los Angeles 0.014% 0.0114301% City Beverly Hills Los Angeles 0.065% 0.0534897% City Burbank Los Angeles 0.100% 0.0823132% City Calabasas Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048948% City Carson Los Angeles 0.019% 0.0159805% City Cerritos Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039682% City Claremont Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0082584% City Commerce Los Angeles 0.000% 0.0002971% City Compton Los Angeles 0.044% 0.0361882% City Covina Los Angeles 0.028% 0.0229127% City Cudahy Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006020% City Culver City Los Angeles 0.055% 0.0449894% City Diamond Bar Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006993% City Downey Los Angeles 0.052% 0.0429994% City Duarte Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0027261% City El Monte Los Angeles 0.031% 0.038% 0.0318985% City El Segundo Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0268020% City Gardena Los Angeles 0.034% 0.0278088% City Glendale Los Angeles 0.166% 0.1366586% City Glendora Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134411% City Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040549% City Hawthorne Los Angeles 0.050% 0.0407833% 4 of 15 Page 106 of 184
APPENDIX 1 Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage City Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0145307% City Huntington Park Los Angeles 0.023% 0.0190667% City Inglewood Los Angeles 0.059% 0.0489195% City La Cañada Flintridge Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0025565% City Lakewood Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039971% City La Mirada Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0081572% City Lancaster Los Angeles 0.045% 0.0369689% City La Puente Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012999% City La Verne Los Angeles 0.024% 0.0194190% City Lawndale Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0017731% City Lomita Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0031940% City Long Beach Los Angeles 0.439% 0.3614151% City Los Angeles Los Angeles 2.715% 3.321% 2.8218811% City Lynwood Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134345% City Malibu Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0019269% City Manhattan Beach Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260686% City Maywood Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0035528% City Monrovia Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0254455% City Montebello Los Angeles 0.030% 0.0250670% City Monterey Park Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0256677% City Norwalk Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0258228% City Palmdale Los Angeles 0.046% 0.0375827% City Palos Verdes Estates Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0053102% City Paramount Los Angeles 0.011% 0.0091483% City Pasadena Los Angeles 0.146% 0.1200524% City Pico Rivera Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0183333% City Pomona Los Angeles 0.111% 0.0911933% City Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012645% City Redondo Beach Los Angeles 0.062% 0.0506992% City Rosemead Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0028260% 5 of 15 Page 107 of 184
APPENDIX 1 Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage City San Dimas Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0022016% City San Fernando Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0104837% City San Gabriel Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0147726% City San Marino Los Angeles 0.009% 0.0073791% City Santa Clarita Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0178167% City Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0257531% City Santa Monica Los Angeles 0.158% 0.1298513% City Sierra Madre Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048646% City Signal Hill Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0084884% City South El Monte Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039603% City South Gate Los Angeles 0.020% 0.0166272% City South Pasadena Los Angeles 0.012% 0.0095334% City Temple City Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039498% City Torrance Los Angeles 0.112% 0.0919820% City Walnut Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0047305% City West Covina Los Angeles 0.049% 0.0404521% City West Hollywood Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0108517% City Whittier Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260581% County Madera County Madera 0.349% 0.427% 0.3630669% City Chowchilla Madera 0.012% 0.0097332% City Madera Madera 0.039% 0.0318441% County Marin County Marin 0.564% 0.690% 0.5861325% City Larkspur Marin 0.015% 0.0124697% City Mill Valley Marin 0.020% 0.0168401% City Novato Marin 0.028% 0.0229824% City San Anselmo Marin 0.009% 0.0078062% City San Rafael Marin 0.089% 0.0729823% County Mariposa County Mariposa 0.084% 0.103% 0.0876131% County Mendocino County Mendocino 0.439% 0.536% 0.4558394% City Ukiah Mendocino 0.039% 0.0317153% 6 of 15 Page 108 of 184
APPENDIX 1 Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage County Merced County Merced 0.551% 0.674% 0.5724262% City Atwater Merced 0.024% 0.0195846% City Livingston Merced 0.006% 0.0045873% City Los Banos Merced 0.020% 0.0165142% City Merced Merced 0.061% 0.0500762% County Modoc County Modoc 0.065% 0.080% 0.0678250% County Mono County Mono 0.023% 0.029% 0.0242606% County Monterey County Monterey 0.908% 1.111% 0.9437083% City Greenfield Monterey 0.006% 0.0050552% City King City Monterey 0.005% 0.0037355% City Marina Monterey 0.017% 0.0144098% City Monterey Monterey 0.041% 0.0336540% City Pacific Grove Monterey 0.009% 0.0074842% City Salinas Monterey 0.094% 0.0776576% City Seaside Monterey 0.023% 0.0191772% City Soledad Monterey 0.007% 0.0060870% County Napa County Napa 0.288% 0.352% 0.2994325% City American Canyon Napa 0.017% 0.0136869% City Napa Napa 0.078% 0.0642783% County Nevada County Nevada 0.441% 0.539% 0.4579827% City Grass Valley Nevada 0.024% 0.0197805% City Truckee Nevada 0.003% 0.0023843% County Orange County Orange 4.364% 5.339% 4.5363576% City Aliso Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0113841% City Anaheim Orange 0.554% 0.678% 0.5759282% City Brea Orange 0.086% 0.0708897% City Buena Park Orange 0.087% 0.0714352% City Costa Mesa Orange 0.124% 0.152% 0.1288366% City Cypress Orange 0.033% 0.0271937% City Dana Point Orange 0.001% 0.0005560% 7 of 15 Page 109 of 184
APPENDIX 1 Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage City Fountain Valley Orange 0.055% 0.0455980% City Fullerton Orange 0.137% 0.168% 0.1425744% City Garden Grove Orange 0.213% 0.1752482% City Huntington Beach Orange 0.247% 0.302% 0.2568420% City Irvine Orange 0.139% 0.170% 0.1442350% City Laguna Beach Orange 0.047% 0.058% 0.0493043% City Laguna Hills Orange 0.014% 0.0115457% City Laguna Niguel Orange 0.001% 0.0007071% City Laguna Woods Orange 0.001% 0.0006546% City La Habra Orange 0.060% 0.073% 0.0621049% City Lake Forest Orange 0.012% 0.0101249% City La Palma Orange 0.012% 0.0095439% City Los Alamitos Orange 0.008% 0.0069190% City Mission Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0117560% City Newport Beach Orange 0.179% 0.1470134% City Orange Orange 0.150% 0.1231320% City Placentia Orange 0.029% 0.035% 0.0298912% City Rancho Santa Margarita Orange 0.001% 0.0006296% City San Clemente Orange 0.008% 0.010% 0.0086083% City San Juan Capistrano Orange 0.008% 0.0065510% City Santa Ana Orange 0.502% 0.614% 0.5213866% City Seal Beach Orange 0.020% 0.0165891% City Stanton Orange 0.035% 0.0291955% City Tustin Orange 0.073% 0.0600341% City Westminster Orange 0.104% 0.127% 0.1082721% City Yorba Linda Orange 0.044% 0.0362223% County Placer County Placer 1.045% 1.278% 1.0861002% City Auburn Placer 0.017% 0.0141114% City Lincoln Placer 0.031% 0.0255599% City Rocklin Placer 0.076% 0.0625485% 8 of 15 Page 110 of 184
APPENDIX 1 Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage City Roseville Placer 0.196% 0.1616559% County Plumas County Plumas 0.205% 0.251% 0.2128729% County Riverside County Riverside 4.534% 5.547% 4.7128296% City Banning Riverside 0.017% 0.0143848% City Beaumont Riverside 0.021% 0.0171135% City Blythe Riverside 0.012% 0.0096714% City Canyon Lake Riverside 0.000% 0.0001761% City Cathedral City Riverside 0.067% 0.0553614% City Coachella Riverside 0.021% 0.0173054% City Corona Riverside 0.147% 0.1207083% City Desert Hot Springs Riverside 0.024% 0.0200433% City Eastvale Riverside 0.000% 0.0002747% City Hemet Riverside 0.051% 0.0421792% City Indio Riverside 0.056% 0.0457794% City Jurupa Valley Riverside 0.001% 0.0008991% City Lake Elsinore Riverside 0.021% 0.0172949% City La Quinta Riverside 0.063% 0.0516732% City Menifee Riverside 0.032% 0.0260909% City Moreno Valley Riverside 0.137% 0.1130348% City Murrieta Riverside 0.048% 0.059% 0.0497423% City Norco Riverside 0.016% 0.0134542% City Palm Desert Riverside 0.083% 0.0682465% City Palm Springs Riverside 0.076% 0.0629862% City Perris Riverside 0.009% 0.0076774% City Rancho Mirage Riverside 0.052% 0.0431098% City Riverside Riverside 0.268% 0.2206279% City San Jacinto Riverside 0.010% 0.0085936% City Temecula Riverside 0.022% 0.0180086% City Wildomar Riverside 0.008% 0.0062500% County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% 9 of 15 Page 111 of 184
APPENDIX 1 Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage City Citrus Heights Sacramento 0.057% 0.0465312% City Elk Grove Sacramento 0.130% 0.1066994% City Folsom Sacramento 0.108% 0.0890850% City Galt Sacramento 0.017% 0.0143704% City Rancho Cordova Sacramento 0.008% 0.0067679% City Sacramento Sacramento 0.721% 0.882% 0.7496530% County San Benito County San Benito 0.106% 0.130% 0.1101417% City Hollister San Benito 0.027% 0.0225355% County San Bernardino County San Bernardino 3.259% 3.987% 3.3878124% City Adelanto San Bernardino 0.008% 0.0066640% City Apple Valley San Bernardino 0.025% 0.0207360% City Barstow San Bernardino 0.015% 0.0122056% City Chino San Bernardino 0.064% 0.0525893% City Chino Hills San Bernardino 0.001% 0.0006388% City Colton San Bernardino 0.031% 0.0253443% City Fontana San Bernardino 0.112% 0.0920543% City Grand Terrace San Bernardino 0.006% 0.0051051% City Hesperia San Bernardino 0.035% 0.0291522% City Highland San Bernardino 0.004% 0.0029061% City Loma Linda San Bernardino 0.009% 0.0071188% City Montclair San Bernardino 0.039% 0.0322108% City Ontario San Bernardino 0.179% 0.1472934% City Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 0.084% 0.0689431% City Redlands San Bernardino 0.057% 0.0469150% City Rialto San Bernardino 0.073% 0.0603206% City San Bernardino San Bernardino 0.178% 0.1461880% City Twentynine Palms San Bernardino 0.002% 0.0012605% City Upland San Bernardino 0.052% 0.0424460% City Victorville San Bernardino 0.033% 0.0269400% City Yucaipa San Bernardino 0.016% 0.0128772% 10 of 15 Page 112 of 184
APPENDIX 1 Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage City Yucca Valley San Bernardino 0.003% 0.0021228% County San Diego County San Diego 5.706% 6.980% 5.9309748% City Carlsbad San Diego 0.128% 0.1050485% City Chula Vista San Diego 0.189% 0.231% 0.1961456% City Coronado San Diego 0.044% 0.0359095% City El Cajon San Diego 0.113% 0.0933582% City Encinitas San Diego 0.061% 0.074% 0.0630289% City Escondido San Diego 0.145% 0.1192204% City Imperial Beach San Diego 0.014% 0.0118283% City La Mesa San Diego 0.055% 0.068% 0.0575593% City Lemon Grove San Diego 0.022% 0.0183911% City National City San Diego 0.080% 0.0656808% City Oceanside San Diego 0.213% 0.1753428% City Poway San Diego 0.062% 0.0511040% City San Diego San Diego 1.975% 2.416% 2.0531169% City San Marcos San Diego 0.089% 0.0733897% City Santee San Diego 0.033% 0.0268401% City Solana Beach San Diego 0.017% 0.0138564% City Vista San Diego 0.052% 0.0425144% Consolidated San Francisco San Francisco 3.026% 3.702% 3.1457169% County San Joaquin County San Joaquin 1.680% 2.055% 1.7460399% City Lathrop San Joaquin 0.009% 0.0075394% City Lodi San Joaquin 0.053% 0.0439484% City Manteca San Joaquin 0.054% 0.0443454% City Ripon San Joaquin 0.013% 0.0104219% City Stockton San Joaquin 0.313% 0.383% 0.3256176% City Tracy San Joaquin 0.084% 0.0692047% County San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo 0.816% 0.999% 0.8484126% City Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 0.024% 0.0199053% City Atascadero San Luis Obispo 0.029% 0.0240680% 11 of 15 Page 113 of 184
APPENDIX 1 Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage City El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) San Luis Obispo 0.043% 0.0353456% City Grover Beach San Luis Obispo 0.017% 0.0137881% City Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 0.020% 0.0160922% City San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 0.077% 0.0637841% County San Mateo County San Mateo 1.074% 1.313% 1.1159599% City Belmont San Mateo 0.021% 0.0169860% City Burlingame San Mateo 0.019% 0.0152537% City Daly City San Mateo 0.044% 0.0363880% City East Palo Alto San Mateo 0.013% 0.0103982% City Foster City San Mateo 0.020% 0.0166101% City Half Moon Bay San Mateo 0.004% 0.0031638% City Hillsborough San Mateo 0.013% 0.0110029% City Menlo Park San Mateo 0.015% 0.0126209% City Millbrae San Mateo 0.013% 0.0105836% City Pacifica San Mateo 0.016% 0.0130625% City Redwood City San Mateo 0.056% 0.0463511% City San Bruno San Mateo 0.021% 0.0172161% City San Carlos San Mateo 0.013% 0.0108885% City San Mateo San Mateo 0.052% 0.0425841% City South San Francisco San Mateo 0.043% 0.0353943% County Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara 1.132% 1.385% 1.1768968% City Carpinteria Santa Barbara 0.001% 0.0008938% City Goleta Santa Barbara 0.004% 0.0028969% City Lompoc Santa Barbara 0.047% 0.0389379% City Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 0.122% 0.1004559% City Santa Maria Santa Barbara 0.058% 0.0479179% County Santa Clara County Santa Clara 2.404% 2.941% 2.4987553% City Campbell Santa Clara 0.014% 0.0112566% City Cupertino Santa Clara 0.008% 0.0066824% City Gilroy Santa Clara 0.025% 0.0202891% 12 of 15 Page 114 of 184
APPENDIX 1 Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage City Los Altos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103338% City Los Gatos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103220% City Milpitas Santa Clara 0.036% 0.0298120% City Morgan Hill Santa Clara 0.015% 0.0124619% City Mountain View Santa Clara 0.041% 0.0334608% City Palo Alto Santa Clara 0.039% 0.0323080% City San Jose Santa Clara 0.294% 0.360% 0.3054960% City Santa Clara Santa Clara 0.067% 0.0549723% City Saratoga Santa Clara 0.004% 0.0034161% City Sunnyvale Santa Clara 0.053% 0.0434069% County Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz 0.783% 0.957% 0.8135396% City Capitola Santa Cruz 0.020% 0.0168191% City Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 0.143% 0.1180348% City Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 0.015% 0.0126525% City Watsonville Santa Cruz 0.063% 0.0520136% County Shasta County Shasta 1.095% 1.339% 1.1380191% City Anderson Shasta 0.024% 0.0198896% City Redding Shasta 0.284% 0.2334841% City Shasta Lake Shasta 0.004% 0.0031993% County Siskiyou County Siskiyou 0.228% 0.279% 0.2373393% County Solano County Solano 0.760% 0.6260795% City Benicia Solano 0.031% 0.0253903% City Dixon Solano 0.016% 0.0130849% City Fairfield Solano 0.109% 0.0897317% City Suisun City Solano 0.021% 0.0176183% City Vacaville Solano 0.119% 0.0976497% City Vallejo Solano 0.167% 0.1373644% County Sonoma County Sonoma 1.218% 1.490% 1.2661290% City Healdsburg Sonoma 0.032% 0.0266929% City Petaluma Sonoma 0.081% 0.0667507% 13 of 15 Page 115 of 184
APPENDIX 1 Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage City Rohnert Park Sonoma 0.041% 0.0340759% City Santa Rosa Sonoma 0.184% 0.1519070% City Sonoma Sonoma 0.022% 0.0183438% City Windsor Sonoma 0.016% 0.0129298% County Stanislaus County Stanislaus 1.722% 1.4182273% City Ceres Stanislaus 0.041% 0.0340260% City Modesto Stanislaus 0.217% 0.1788759% City Newman Stanislaus 0.006% 0.0046964% City Oakdale Stanislaus 0.018% 0.0145531% City Patterson Stanislaus 0.015% 0.0126590% City Riverbank Stanislaus 0.010% 0.0085699% City Turlock Stanislaus 0.065% 0.0531966% County Sutter County Sutter 0.306% 0.374% 0.3179548% City Yuba City Sutter 0.074% 0.0606242% County Tehama County Tehama 0.213% 0.261% 0.2216654% City Red Bluff Tehama 0.014% 0.0117771% County Trinity County Trinity 0.082% 0.101% 0.0855476% County Tulare County Tulare 0.809% 0.990% 0.8410949% City Dinuba Tulare 0.014% 0.0116929% City Exeter Tulare 0.004% 0.0032479% City Farmersville Tulare 0.003% 0.0027879% City Lindsay Tulare 0.007% 0.0057111% City Porterville Tulare 0.021% 0.0171845% City Tulare Tulare 0.037% 0.0302273% City Visalia Tulare 0.066% 0.0545872% County Tuolumne County Tuolumne 0.486% 0.594% 0.5047621% County Ventura County Ventura 2.192% 2.681% 2.2781201% City Camarillo Ventura 0.002% 0.0012815% City Fillmore Ventura 0.002% 0.0020294% City Moorpark Ventura 0.008% 0.0067337% 14 of 15 Page 116 of 184
APPENDIX 1 Participating Subdivision Classification Participating Subdivision County Abatement Percentage Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage Weighted Allcation Percentage City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338% City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145% City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072% City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043% City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902% County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319% City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747% City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321% City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904% County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679% City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079% 15 of 15 Page 117 of 184
APPENDIX 2
Cost Reimbursement Procedure
1. Additional defined terms:
a) Costs means the reasonable amounts paid for the attorney and other City Attorney and
County Counsel staff time for individuals employed by a Plaintiff Subdivision at the
contractual rate, inclusive of benefits and overhead, together with amounts paid for court
reporters, experts, copying, electronic research, travel, vendors, and the like, which were
not previously reimbursed and which were paid or incurred (i) prior to December 31,
2022 in litigation against any Opioid Defendant and/or (ii) in negotiating and drafting
any CA Allocation Agreement(s) concerning a settlement with any Opioid Defendant(s).
Costs does not include attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses incurred by private contingency
fee counsel. No part of the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be used to reimburse
Costs.
b) First Claims Date means October 1, 2023 or when all applications for reimbursement of
Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section IX and Exhibit R of the
Walgreens Settlement Agreement, Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement
Agreement, Section XIII and Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X
and Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, Section XI and Exhibit R of the
Janssen Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement
Agreement, or Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, have
been finally determined under the provisions of those agreements, whichever comes first.
c) Special Master means a retired judicial officer or former public lawyer, not presently
employed or retained by a Plaintiff Subdivision, who will aggregate, review, and
determine the reasonable Costs to be awarded to each Plaintiff Subdivision that submits a
claim for reimbursement of Costs. The Special Master will be selected by a majority vote
of the votes cast by Plaintiff Subdivisions, with each such subdivision having one vote.
d) Plaintiff Subdivision Committee means the committee of Plaintiff Subdivisions that will
review and approve the invoices submitted by the Special Master reflecting his or her
reasonable time and expenses.
2. Cost Reimbursement to Plaintiff Subdivision
a) Purpose. Substantial resources have been expended to hold Opioid Defendants
accountable for creating and profiting from the opioid crisis, and this effort has been a
significant catalyst in creating National Opioid Settlements with various manufacturers,
distributors, and chain pharmacies.
///
1 Page 118 of 184
b) Claims Procedure.
i. If a Plaintiff Subdivision is eligible to seek reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in
part, from funds available under Section IX and Exhibit R of the Kroger Settlement
Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement,
Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement, Section XIII and
Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the
CVS Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement
Agreement, Section X or Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, or
Section XI or Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, it must first make a
timely application for reimbursement from such funds. To allow sufficient time for
determination of those applications, no claim for Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund
under this Agreement may be made before the First Claims Date.
ii. A Plaintiff Subdivision that wishes to be reimbursed from the CA Subdivision Fund
must submit a claim to the Special Master no later than forty-five (45) days after the
First Claims Date. The Special Master will then compile and redistribute the
aggregated claim totals for each Plaintiff Subdivision via email to representatives of
all the Plaintiff Subdivisions. A claim for attorney and staff time must list, for each
attorney or staff member included in the claim, the following information: name,
title, total hours claimed, hourly rate (including, if sought, benefits and share of
overhead), and narrative summarizing the general nature of the work performed by
the attorney or staff member. For reimbursement of “hard” costs, the subdivision
may aggregate across a category (e.g., total for travel costs). It is the intention of the
Plaintiff Subdivisions that submission of documents related to reimbursement of
Costs does not waive any attorney-client privilege or exemptions to the California
Public Records Act.
iii. The Special Master may request, at his or her sole option, additional documents or
details to assist in the final award of Costs.
iv. The Special Master will review claims for reasonableness and will notify each
Plaintiff Subdivision of the final determination of its claim, and will provide a list of
all final awards to all Plaintiff Subdivisions by email or, upon request, via First
Class U.S. Mail. Any Plaintiff Subdivision may ask the Special Master to reconsider
any final award within twenty-one (21) days. The Special Master will make a final
determination on any such reconsideration request within thirty (30) days of receipt.
v. Any decision of the Special Master is final and binding, and will be considered
under the California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq.
as a final arbitration award. Nothing in this agreement is intended to expand the
scope of judicial review of the final award for errors of fact or law, and the Parties
agree that they may only seek to vacate the award if clear and convincing evidence
demonstrates one of the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1286.2,
subdivision (a). Plaintiff Subdivisions will have fourteen (14) days after all final
awards are made, together with any final determination of a request for
2 Page 119 of 184
reconsideration, to seek review in the Superior Court of California, pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure, section 1285, where the State has filed its Consent Judgment.
vi. The Special Master will prepare a report of Costs that includes his or her fees and
expenses at least ninety (90) days before the Payment Date for each Annual
Payment. The Special Master’s preparation of a report of Costs does not discharge a
Plaintiff Subdivision’s reporting requirement under Section V(B)(2) of the Kroger
Settlement Agreement.
vii. A member of the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee, which is a CA Participating
Subdivision, will submit to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Kroger a report
of the fees and expenses incurred by the Special Master pursuant to Section V(B)(2)
of the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
c) Claims Priority and Limitation.
i. The Special Master will submit invoices for compensation of reasonable fees and
expenses to the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee no later than ninety (90) days prior
to the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee
will promptly review and, if reasonable, approve the Special Master’s invoice for
compensation. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will submit approved invoices
to the Settlement Fund Administrator for payment. The Special Master’s approved
invoices have priority and will be paid first from the CA Subdivision Fund before
any award of Costs, subject to the limitation in Section 2.c.v below.
ii. Final Awards of Costs that do not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars
($75,000.00) will be paid next in priority after the Special Master’s approved
invoices.
iii. Final Awards of Costs in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will
be paid proportionally from the funds remaining in that year’s Annual Payment.
iv. Any claim for Costs that is not paid in full will be allocated against the next year’s
distribution from the CA Subdivision Fund, until all approved claims for Costs are
paid in full.
v. In no event will more than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any
year be used to pay Costs or the Special Master’s approved invoices.
vi. In no event shall more than $28 million of the total CA Subdivision Funds paid
pursuant to the Kroger Settlement Agreement, Walgreens Settlement Agreement,
Teva Settlement Agreement, Allergan Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement
Agreement, CVS Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement Agreement, and the
Walmart Settlement Agreement be used to pay Costs.
3 Page 120 of 184
d) Collateral Source Payments and Third-Party Settlement.
i. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision is awarded compensation, in whole or in part, by
any source of funds created as a result of litigation against an Opioid Defendant for
its reasonable Costs, it will reduce its claim for Costs from the CA Subdivision
Fund by that amount. If a Plaintiff Subdivision has already received a final award of
Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund, it will repay the fund up to the prior award of
Costs via a payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator or notify the Settlement
Fund Administrator that its allocation from the next and subsequent Annual
Payments should be reduced accordingly. If the Plaintiff Subdivision is repaying
any prior award of Costs, that repayment will occur as soon as is feasible after the
Plaintiff Subdivision’s receipt of Cost funds from the collateral source, but no more
than 90 days after its receipt from the collateral source. The Settlement Fund
Administrator will add any repaid Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund. Any Plaintiff
Subdivision that has submitted for reimbursement to any national fund and has not
received a final determination by the First Claims Date may request that the
settlement administrator withhold some or all of its payment from the CA
Subdivision Fund in order to avoid repayment.
ii. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision reaches a monetary settlement or compromise
against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement, the
monetary portion of such settlement, net of fees paid to outside contingency fee
counsel and of funds earmarked strictly for abatement, will be credited against its
Costs and the subdivision will be ineligible to recover those credited Costs from the
CA Subdivision Fund. Plaintiff Subdivisions negotiating monetary settlements or
compromises against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid
Settlement will negotiate for funds to repay any Costs it previously received from
the CA Subdivision Fund or for Costs it otherwise might be eligible to claim from
the CA Subdivision Fund. If such a settlement is paid after all final approved claims
for Costs by all Plaintiff Subdivisions are satisfied in full, the settling subdivision
will reimburse the CA Subdivision Fund in that amount by making payment to the
Settlement Fund Administrator to add to the CA Subdivision Fund in a manner
consistent with the repayments described in section 2.d.i above.
4 Page 121 of 184
APPENDIX 3
CALIFORNIA-SUBDIVISION BACKSTOP AGREEMENT
On August 6, 2021, Judge Polster of the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
issued an Order (the Order), docket number 3814, in In Re National Prescription Opiate
Litigation, MDL 2804, addressing contingent attorney fee contracts between political
subdivisions eligible to participate in the Kroger Settlement and their counsel.
In light of the Order, and at the request of [SUBDIVISION], the [SUBDIVISION], its counsel
[COUNSEL], and the California Attorney General, on behalf of the State of California, are
entering into this California-Subdivision Backstop Agreement (Backstop Agreement).
[SUBDIVISION] and [COUNSEL] intend this Backstop Agreement to constitute a State Back-
Stop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’
Fees, Costs, and Expenses) of the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the
Kroger Settlement Agreement and CA Kroger Allocation Agreement, as well as any other
limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Kroger Settlement CA
Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from
[SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL], together with any contingency fees that [COUNSEL] may
receive from the national Attorney Fee Fund, will not exceed a total contingency fee of
[PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED 15%] of the total gross recovery of [SUBDIVISION] from
the Kroger Settlement.
[COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created
under the Kroger Settlement Agreement before seeking or accepting payment under this
backstop agreement. [COUNSEL] further certify that they are not seeking and will not accept
payment under this backstop agreement of any litigation fees or costs that have been reimbursed
through prior settlements or judgments.
The Attorney General is executing this agreement solely because the definition of “State Back-
Stop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Kroger Settlement Agreement requires such agreements to
be between “a Settling State” and private counsel for a participating subdivision. Neither the
California Attorney General nor the State of California have any obligations under this Backstop
Agreement, and this Backstop Agreement does not require the payment of any state funds to
[SUBDIVISION], [COUNSEL], or any other party.
[DATE] [SUBDIVISION SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [COUNSEL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
1 Page 122 of 184