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
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Republic of Venezuela

Defendant

  • Others
  • Philip Morris Incorporated

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

None

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"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."