After a smoker died of lung cancer, his survivors sued cigarette manufacturers and distributors. In this decision, the appellate court addressed the preemption issues in the context of the doctrine of fraudulent joinder, which is invoked to achieve diversity jurisdiction. The court held that the lower court erroneously allowed the tobacco companies to achieve diversity jurisdiction by its incorrect finding that the plaintiffs' state law claims were preempted and constituted fraudulent joinder. The court vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to remand to state court.
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.
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.
After a smoker died of lung cancer, his survivors sued cigarette manufacturers and distributors. In this decision, the appellate court addressed the preemption issues in the context of the doctrine of fraudulent joinder, which is invoked to achieve diversity jurisdiction. The court held that the lower court erroneously allowed the tobacco companies to achieve diversity jurisdiction by its incorrect finding that the plaintiffs' state law claims were preempted and constituted fraudulent joinder. The court vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to remand to state court.