Thirteen Arizona counties filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit where the State of Arizona and the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) (“the State”) sued the tobacco industry and its trade associations (“the tobacco companies”) for misleading consumers on the effects of tobacco and sought damages in addition to declaratory and injunctive relief. The state of Arizona and forty-four other states had entered a global settlement agreement (known as the Master Settlement Agreement) with the companies, under which the states would receive compensation for expenses incurred from health services provided to those with tobacco-related diseases. Because the settlement agreement allowed only the state to receive the payments, the counties filed the motion to intervene to ensure receipt of their share of the settlement fund. The trial court found the motion to intervene untimely and the appellate court affirmed.
State of Arizona v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 988 P.2d 1055, Supreme Court of Arizona (2000).
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.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
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
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.
"Instead of intervening, however, county officials wrote to Governor Jane Dee Hull and Attorney General Grant Woods. On November 18, 1998, Janice Brewer, the Chairwoman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, urged Hull and Woods by letter to discuss the issue of apportionment with the County "as soon as your schedules allow." Brewer acknowledged that "time is of the essence" and that "it may be necessary to file a Motion to Intervene in the litigation in
order to protect County taxpayer interests." The following day, Les Thompson, President of the County Supervisors Association of Arizona, wrote a similar letter to Hull, emphasizing the Counties' "strong belief" that they were entitled to part of the settlement proceeds. Thompson also asked to meet with Hull to discuss the issue "at your earliest convenience." The Governor's response to Brewer's letter on November 25th plainly indicated that the State had no intention of meeting with the Counties to discuss how the settlement funds would be divided. Hull said that she and the Attorney General had already announced their proposal for distributing the settlement funds to the Counties in the form of "health care block grants."
¶ 15 Thus, on November 25, 1998, it should have been absolutely clear to the Counties that intervention was necessary. Yet, they waited another three weeks to file their motion. If the Counties wished to safeguard their interests, swift, decisive action was in order. Their efforts in this case fell short of the mark. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to intervene as untimely. See NAACP, 413 U.S. at 367, 93 S.Ct. at 2604 (motion to intervene filed four days after judgment, and eighteen days after intervenor had actual knowledge that intervention was necessary, was properly denied as untimely); Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir.1978) (motion to intervene filed seventeen days after entry of consent decree was properly denied as untimely). "
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.
Thirteen Arizona counties filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit where the State of Arizona and the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) (“the State”) sued the tobacco industry and its trade associations (“the tobacco companies”) for misleading consumers on the effects of tobacco and sought damages in addition to declaratory and injunctive relief. The state of Arizona and forty-four other states had entered a global settlement agreement (known as the Master Settlement Agreement) with the companies, under which the states would receive compensation for expenses incurred from health services provided to those with tobacco-related diseases. Because the settlement agreement allowed only the state to receive the payments, the counties filed the motion to intervene to ensure receipt of their share of the settlement fund. The trial court found the motion to intervene untimely and the appellate court affirmed.