Republic of Venezuela v. Philip Morris Inc., et al.
Six foreign governments filed separate actions against various tobacco companies in a Florida state court, seeking recovery of health care costs attributable to treatment of tobacco-related diseases. The actions were initially removed to federal district court, but certain actions were subsequently remanded by the district court to Florida state court due to the lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The tobacco companies both appealed the district court's decisions to remand and petitioned the Appellate Court to issue writs of mandamus prohibiting remand. In this decision, the Appellate Court held that it lacked authority to review the district court's decision to remand. The Court further declined to issue writs of mandamus. The Court noted, among other things, that remand to state court would not constitute clear error or abuse of discretion in these cases and that the Court's lack of authority to review remand decisions on appeal counseled against asserting its authority to prevent these decisions.
Republic of Venezuela v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., 287 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
United States
Apr 26, 2002
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Governments or insurance agencies may seek reimbursement from the tobacco companies for health care costs related to tobacco. The most famous example is the case brought by individual states in the U.S.A. that resulted in the Master Settlement Agreement.
The subject matter of the case should be dealt with at a state level or national level.
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.
"In any event, the tobacco companies do not come close to demonstrating that it would be a clear error or an abuse of discretion for the district court to order the cases remanded. The companies identify no precedent of this court or of the Supreme Court even suggesting there is federal subject matter jurisdiction over a case merely because the plaintiff is a foreign government with a sovereign or an economic interest in the outcome of the lawsuit. The other circuits to have considered the companies' theory--in cases where the foreign sovereigns were not the plaintiffs but had a material interest in the outcomes--are divided over the issue of federal jurisdiction…. Considering that the Ninth Circuit has adopted as its own the district court's reason for remanding in the Latin America Cases, we cannot agree with the companies that the district court is now poised to commit a clear error that would justify our issuing a writ of mandamus.* … In sum, the companies have failed to make out one if not both prerequisites for a writ of mandamus. Therefore, we deny the companies' petitions without considering the other factors mentioned in NACDL."
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.
Six foreign governments filed separate actions against various tobacco companies in a Florida state court, seeking recovery of health care costs attributable to treatment of tobacco-related diseases. The actions were initially removed to federal district court, but certain actions were subsequently remanded by the district court to Florida state court due to the lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The tobacco companies both appealed the district court's decisions to remand and petitioned the Appellate Court to issue writs of mandamus prohibiting remand. In this decision, the Appellate Court held that it lacked authority to review the district court's decision to remand. The Court further declined to issue writs of mandamus. The Court noted, among other things, that remand to state court would not constitute clear error or abuse of discretion in these cases and that the Court's lack of authority to review remand decisions on appeal counseled against asserting its authority to prevent these decisions.