Cleary v. Philip Morris USA

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

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Brian Cleary
  • Others similarly situated
  • Rita Burke

Defendant

  • Others
  • Philip Morris USA, Inc.

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"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."