Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Two individuals brought an action in state court against a tobacco company under Minnesota's consumer protection law and the doctrine of fraud, seeking damages and restitution for the company's manufacturing and marketing practices designed to deceive the public as to the harmful health effects of its "lights" cigarettes.  Following an unsuccessful attempt to remove the case to federal court, the defendants moved for removal a second time over two years after the original filing of the complaint, arguing that federal officer jurisdiction should apply to this case in light of a holding in the Eighth Circuit that recognizes federal officer jurisdiction in a separate, but similar case.  The Court held that the defendants' motion for removal was untimely despite the recent ruling by the Eighth Circuit and remanded the case to state court.

Dahl, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., 478 F.3d 965, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (2007).

  • United States
  • Feb 28, 2007
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Parties

Plaintiff

  • David Scott Huber
  • Michael S. Dahl

Defendant

  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"This case is one of many across the country and within our circuit which challenge the marketing, advertising, and distribution of "light" cigarettes. Plaintiffs filed their complaint in state court on April 3, 2003, seeking damages and restitution for R.J. Reynolds' "unfair business practices and/or deceptive and unlawful conduct in connection with the manufacture, distribution, promotion, marketing, and sale" of its light cigarettes. Plaintiffs claim that R.J. Reynolds: (l) designed its light cigarettes to register lower levels of tar and nicotine than what would actually be ingested by consumers, (2) intentionally misrepresented to consumers that its light cigarettes would deliver less tar and nicotine than other cigarettes, (3) intentionally misrepresented that its light cigarettes were healthy alternatives to other cigarettes, and (4) continued to sell light cigarettes as a healthy alternative knowing this to be false."