Smokers of Camel cigarettes filed a class action lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) when the company ended its “Camel Cash” loyalty program but failed to make certain merchandise available for redemption during the final six months of the program. RJR requested penalties against the class action plaintiffs for filing what RJR believed to be a frivolous claim since cigarettes and coupons for cigarettes – which it defined as a type of merchandise – were available during the six-month period in question. In this decision, the court allowed the lawsuit to continue and denied RJR’s request for sanctions.
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.
"The Court concludes that RJR’s Rule 11 motion should be denied. The arguments advanced by RJR in its concurrently filed summary judgment motion are similar to the arguments RJR advances here. Namely, RJR argues that summary judgment should be granted as to plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim because the term “merchandise” includes cigarettes and coupons for cigarettes, and it is undisputed that RJR made available both cigarettes and coupons during the last six months of the Camel Cash program. This similarity—coupled with RJR’s five-year delay in bringing this motion—convinces the Court that RJR’s motion should be denied. "
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.
Smokers of Camel cigarettes filed a class action lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) when the company ended its “Camel Cash” loyalty program but failed to make certain merchandise available for redemption during the final six months of the program. RJR requested penalties against the class action plaintiffs for filing what RJR believed to be a frivolous claim since cigarettes and coupons for cigarettes – which it defined as a type of merchandise – were available during the six-month period in question. In this decision, the court allowed the lawsuit to continue and denied RJR’s request for sanctions.