Plaintiff, individually and for a class of similarly situated smokers, originally filed this case as a class action against tobacco manufacturers. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants committed fraud by marketing “light” cigarettes in violation of the Merchandising Practices Act. Class was defined as "all residents of Missouri who purchased and consumed Defendants' Marlboro Lights cigarettes, in Missouri, at any time between the five years immediately preceding the filing of the Petition in this suit through the date the Court originally certified this suit as a class action (December 31, 2003), but who do not have a claim for personal injury resulting from the purchase or consumption of cigarettes." The district court granted class certification under the MPA. The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, affirmed that decision. Subsequently, the plaintiff asked the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two, to return the case to Missouri's state court system based on a trend of federal courts sending relevant cases back to state courts due to the lack of timeliness of their original removal to federal courts. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two, granted the motion to return the case to the St. Louis City Circuit Court, where the case had originally commenced.
Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al., No. 4:05CV01531 ERW, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division (2006).
United States
Mar 17, 2006
United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 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)
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 timeliness requirement...is extremely important because it protects state court jurisdiction and limits the “specter of impending interruption and a concomitant waste of judicial resources.” Johansen, 668 F.Supp. at 1297. This case has been actively litigated in state court for over five years. Plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted more than two years ago. The rigid construction of removal statutes is necessary for the efficient adjudication of cases like this one which already have a tendency to languish for years in the courts. Very substantial resources have been expended by the parties in state court. Plaintiff has a right to a reasonable expectation that her case will be timely heard in an orderly fashion. There is no lawful showing that this reasonable expectation should be interrupted by permitting removal. This Court holds that Watson II does not contain an “order” as contemplated by § 1446(b). Furthermore, there is no basis to conclude Watson II is “other paper” under § 1446(b). Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand will be granted."
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.
Plaintiff, individually and for a class of similarly situated smokers, originally filed this case as a class action against tobacco manufacturers. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants committed fraud by marketing “light” cigarettes in violation of the Merchandising Practices Act. Class was defined as "all residents of Missouri who purchased and consumed Defendants' Marlboro Lights cigarettes, in Missouri, at any time between the five years immediately preceding the filing of the Petition in this suit through the date the Court originally certified this suit as a class action (December 31, 2003), but who do not have a claim for personal injury resulting from the purchase or consumption of cigarettes." The district court granted class certification under the MPA. The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, affirmed that decision. Subsequently, the plaintiff asked the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two, to return the case to Missouri's state court system based on a trend of federal courts sending relevant cases back to state courts due to the lack of timeliness of their original removal to federal courts. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two, granted the motion to return the case to the St. Louis City Circuit Court, where the case had originally commenced.