Chamberlain v. American Tobacco Co.
(Class Action US Dist. Ct. N. OH Decertified) Related cases: Castano v. ATC Citation: 70 F.Supp.2d 788 (12 Apr 1999); 1999 WL 33994451 (N.D.Ohio 19 Nov 1999)This class action suit was brought by Judith E. Chamberlain and William O. Crider against American Tobacco Co., Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Liggett, the Tobacco Institute, American Brands, British American Tobacco, Loew's, United States Tobacco, Novelart Manufacturing, EBY-Brown, Kroger, and Riser Foods on August 14, 1996. The case was filed in the wake of the Castano decertification. On February 16, 1997, the complaint was amended, naming additional representative plaintiffs Robert Rubinow, Paula Wohlerber, and Raymond Sheppard.
The class was defined as "Ohio residents who are either addicted, or are in danger of becoming addicted, to cigarettes." The plaintiffs alleged they had suffered injuries as a result of smoking cigarettes. The defendants engaged in a course of fraudulent conduct beginning in the 1950s concealing and denying the addictive nature of cigarettes and manipulating its level in cigarettes to addict smokers. The defendants also made representations that they were investigating the health consequences of smoking, when in reality they were suppressing and confusing scientific research on the issue and refraining from designing "safer" cigarettes, despite technology to do so. Plaintiff Chamberlain smoked from 1956-60 to the filing of the suit, Rubinow smoked from 1954 through the filing of the suit, Sheppard smoked from 1944 until filing, Wohlerber smoked from 1965 until filing, and Crider smoked from at least 1982 until his death in 1996. The plaintiffs claimed fraud and deceit, conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, violation of the state's consumer protection statutes, breach of express and implied warranty, strict product liability, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages, equitable and injunctive relief, medical monitoring, restitution of all money from sale of cigarettes in Ohio, attorney fees and costs.
The case was originally filed the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio. The defendants removed it to federal courts. The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Cause No. 1:96CV2005) before the Honorable Judge Gaughan. The judge denied the plaintiffs' petition to remand the case on April 12, 1999. He held that in-state suppliers and distributors of cigarettes were not liable as manufacturers since the representative plaintiffs had never smoked the private label cigarettes sold by the supplier-defendants. Since the manufacturers were available in the jursidiction, the suppliers could not be held liable for their misconduct. Nor were they liable for negligent sale or failure to warn, under the state product liability law. The plaintiffs failed to allege an adequate claim under the state consumer protection statutes because any failure to warn claim fell under the state product liability law. Thus, all in-state defendants must be dismissed. The jursidictional amount-in-controversy was met considering all forms of recovery sought together.
The judge later denied class certification.
The judge (1999 WL 33994451 (N.D.Ohio)) granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss on November 19, 1999. The court ruled that, the plaintiffs' failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation and fraud and deceit claims was based both on the state products liability statute and on common law fraud, thus a common knowledge defense would not defeat them. However, the plaintiffs' other claims were supplanted by the state's product liability statute. Given the history of tobacco use and the widespread knowledge that it can be harmful, the judge ruled that its health risks were common knowledge. The judge found the plaintiffs' allegations sufficient to allege fraud, and that it was possible for the plaintiffs to prove reliance. The conspiracy claim could also be based on the fraud allegation. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act did not preempt the plaintiffs' fraud claims because they were based on a duty not to deceive. The plaintiffs' medical costs were not benefits to the defendants under the undue enrichment claim. The judge held that individual consumers could not bring a personal injury claim under the state consumer protection act. In the same opinion, the judge denied the Tobacco Institute's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendant's lobbying activities with the state government and national press releases were sufficient to establish jurisdiction.