A class of Illinois residents sued several tobacco companies for unjust enrichment, alleging, among other things, that the companies: (1) engaged in a decade-long conspiracy to suppress information about the addictive nature of nicotine; (2) directed cigarette marketing and advertising toward minors; and (3) knowingly and falsely marketed Marlboro Lights as being less harmful than other cigarettes. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment against named-plaintiff Rita Burke on the conspiracy count and the Marlboro Lights count, finding that Ms. Burke had failed to allege any personal detriment suffered as a result of defendants' actions. The Court then dismissed the conspiracy claim because the remaining named class representative, Brian Cleary, was not born until after the time the conspiracy was alleged to have existed. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the youth marketing and advertising count on the grounds that the claim was time-barred. The claim concerning Marlboro Lights remained with Mr. Cleary as the only named plaintiff.
Cleary, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 09 C 1596 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2010).
United States
Feb 1, 2010
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
Measures restricting tobacco sales to or by minors, as well as other retail restrictions relating to point-of-sale, candy and toys resembling tobacco products, vending machines, or free distribution.
(See FCTC Art. 16)
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"The defendants have also moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs' youth marketing claim (Count 2) against both Cleary and Burke on the ground that the claim is time-barred. Illinois law imposes a five year statute of limitations on unjust enrichment claims. Burns Philp Food, Inc. v. Cavalea Cont’l Freight, Inc., 135 F.3d 526, 527-28 (7th Cir. 1998). If a claim involves a minor plaintiff, and the five-year statute of limitations expires before the plaintiff reaches the age of majority, the limitations period is extended for an additional two years. 735 ILCS 5/13-211. Plaintiffs allege that they smoked cigarettes as minors as a result of defendants’ advertising aimed at youth. TAC 209; Pls.’ Mem. at 24. To be actionable, any underage-directed marketing had to have affected the plaintiffs by the time they turned eighteen. Burke turned eighteen in 1958, and Cleary turned eighteen in January 1989. Neither filed suit until 1998. As a result, their youth marketing claims are time-barred unless they have a basis to toll the statute of limitations."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A class of Illinois residents sued several tobacco companies for unjust enrichment, alleging, among other things, that the companies: (1) engaged in a decade-long conspiracy to suppress information about the addictive nature of nicotine; (2) directed cigarette marketing and advertising toward minors; and (3) knowingly and falsely marketed Marlboro Lights as being less harmful than other cigarettes. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment against named-plaintiff Rita Burke on the conspiracy count and the Marlboro Lights count, finding that Ms. Burke had failed to allege any personal detriment suffered as a result of defendants' actions. The Court then dismissed the conspiracy claim because the remaining named class representative, Brian Cleary, was not born until after the time the conspiracy was alleged to have existed. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the youth marketing and advertising count on the grounds that the claim was time-barred. The claim concerning Marlboro Lights remained with Mr. Cleary as the only named plaintiff.