Cleary v. Philip Morris USA

A class of Illinois residents sued several tobacco companies for unjust enrichment.  Following the dismissal of claims brought by an original named plaintiff, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint naming a new representative plaintiff and reinstating allegations that the defendants engaged in a decade-long conspiracy to suppress information about the addictive nature of nicotine and knowingly and falsely marketed Marlboro Lights as being less harmful than other cigarettes.  The Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to assert any personal detriment suffered or any legal right invaded as a result of defendants' alleged actions.

Cleary, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 09 C 1596 (N.D. Ill. June 22, 2010).

  • United States
  • Jun 22, 2010
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Brian Cleary
  • Ines Taylor
  • Others similarly situated

Defendant

  • Others
  • Philip Morris USA, Inc.

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"By contrast, the plaintiffs in this case have not alleged that they would not have purchased the cigarettes had they known of the risks they presented, nor have they alleged that the cigarettes they purchased were unfit for their intended purposes. And the fourth amended complaint contains no underlying ICFA, breach of warranty, or other claim that includes an allegation of actual injury or harm to plaintiffs. The fourth amended complaint contains dozens of pages of factual allegations about the ways defendants concealed and failed to disclose the truth, but it does not connect those allegations to any detriment caused by that alleged wrongdoing. To put it another way, even if defendants had a duty to disclose the dangers of smoking (a matter the Court need not determine), the complaint fails to allege that plaintiffs would have acted any differently had they been fully informed. One can certainly assume that it was to the plaintiffs’ detriment to smoke cigarettes in the first place, just as it was to defendants’ benefit to profit off the sale of cigarettes. Without some allegation of a connection between the acts of concealment and plaintiffs’ smoking behavior, however, the complaint fails to allege the basis for a claim of unjust enrichment under Illinois law."
"The fourth amended complaint alleges that plaintiffs were deprived of “their legal right to know and to be fully apprised of the true nature and extent of the hazards” of cigarettes, FAC 219 & 240, and were “intentionally [exposed] to [heightened] adverse effects on their health” when defendants sold them addictive and hazardous products without fully informing them of the risk of addiction and health risks of smoking. Id. 219. These alleged detriments stem from what plaintiffs characterize as defendants’ duty to disclose the health risks associated with cigarettes, and conversely, plaintiffs’ legal right to be informed of those risks. Plaintiffs have not, however, identified any Illinois authority tending to establish that defendants had such a duty to disclose or plaintiffs had a legal right to be informed of the dangers of cigarettes."