TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Daniels, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies, et al.

Plaintiffs, a class composed of California citizens, alleged that that a number of tobacco companies had failed in their advertising practices to warn consumers of the addictive nature of tobacco in violation of provisions of the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs further alleged that they became addicted to cigarettes as a result of defendants' deceptive advertising and that the addictions cost each of them thousands of dollars in cigarette purchases. Plaintiffs therefore requested that the San Diego Superior Court require that the tobacco companies reimburse each plaintiff for his or her cigarette expenditures. The defendants attempted to transfer the case to the U.S. district court for adjudication, but the district court returned the case to the San Diego Superior Court for further proceedings.

Daniels, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al., 18 F.Supp.2d 1110, United States District Court for the Southern District of California (1998).

  • United States
  • Aug 7, 1998
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Bryce Clements
  • Daimon Fullerton
  • Devin Daniels

Defendant

  • Lorillard, Inc.
  • Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
  • Philip Morris, Inc.
  • RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp.
  • RJR Nabisco, Inc.
  • US Tobacco, Inc
  • UST, Inc.

Legislation Cited

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Enforcement Action by a Private Individual or Private Entity
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.

Tobacco Control Topics

Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship
Measures restricting any form of direct or indirect tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. (See FCTC Art. 13)

Substantive Issues

Industry-Perpetrated Fraud
The tobacco industry may have perpetrated a fraud upon the public or the courts by presenting false information or deliberately hiding known-facts.
Procedural Defect
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

View Limitations
1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2025 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by