4432 Individual Tobacco v. Various Tobacco Cos. (In re Engle)

• Decision Date: 10 September 2014
• Docket Number: 13–14302.,13–12901,Nos. 13–10839,s. 13–10839
• Parties: In re ENGLE CASES 4432 Individual Tobacco Plaintiffs, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Various Tobacco Companies, Liggett Group, LLC, Vector Group, Ltd., Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

767 F.3d 1082

In re ENGLE CASES

4432 Individual Tobacco Plaintiffs, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.Various Tobacco Companies, Liggett Group, LLC, Vector Group, Ltd., Defendants–Appellees.

Nos. 13–10839

13–12901

13–14302.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 10, 2014.

Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lisa Cisneros, Nancy Chung, Heather A. Foster, Richard M. Heimann, Kent L. Klaudt, Sarah Robin London, Scott Purington Nealey, Robert J. Nelson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Kathryn E. Barnett, Kenneth S. Byrd, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nashville, TN, Eddie Easa Farah, Farah & Farah, Pa, Stephanie J. Hartley, Richard J. Latinberg, Norwood Wilner, The Wilner Firm, PA, Jacksonville, FL, Jennifer Gross, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Samuel Issacharoff, New York University School of Law, New York, NY, Frederick C. Baker, Rebecca M. Deupree, James W. Ledlie, Donald A. Migliori, Christopher F. Moriarty, Lance V. Oliver, Vincent I. Parrett, Joseph F. Rice, Elizabeth S. Smith, Motley Rice, LLC, Mount Pleasant, SC, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Karen Haynes Curtis, Clarke Silverglate, PA, Kelly Anne Luther, Maria H. Ruiz, Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman, LLP, Rafael Cruz–Alvarez, Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, William Patrick Geraghty, Aviva L. Wernick, Nicolas Swerdloff, I, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Francisco Ramos, Jr., Clarke Silverglate, PA, Kenneth J. Reilly, Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Miami, FL, Stephanie Ethel Parker, Lynsey Morris Barron, Jason Todd Burnette, Jessica C. Casey, Richard Hunter Deane, Jr., Gregory Russell Hanthorn, Mina Saifi Iturbe, Laura Christine Lawson, David M. Monde, Kathleen Louise Tucker, John F. Yarber, John M. Walker, Jones Day, Jonathon A. Fligg, Robert Dalrymple Burton, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, W. Ray Persons, King & Spalding, LLP, Michael Wolak, III, Wargo & French, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Charles Richard Allan Morse, Jones Day, Keri Arnold, Michael Craig German, Ingo Sprie, Jr., Arnold & Porter, LLP, Kevin E. Braker, Kevin Clines, Steven S. Dicesare, James C. Fitzpatrick, Jeff H. Galloway, Diane Elizabeth Lifton, Theodore V.H. Mayer, Carole Weitz Nimaroff, Robb W. Patryk, Seth D. Rothman, George A. Tsougarakis, Daniel H. Weiner, Cecily C. Williams, Hughes Hubbard & Reed, LLP, Lauren R. Goldman, Mayer Brown, LLP, Harold K. Gordon, Mark R. Seiden, Jones Day, New York, NY, David Booth Alden, Katrina L.S. Caseldine, Kevin D. Boyce, Steven N. Geise, Bradley W. Harrison, Paul D. Koethe, Dawn Elizabeth McFadden, Dennis L. MurphyJacqueline Marie Pasek, James E. Young, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, Owen B. Asplundh, Gwenda L. Laws, Kurt Douglas Weaver, Philip Zoltan Brown, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLC, Raleigh, NC, H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy, Stephen V. Potenza, Bancroft, PLLC, Renee Tyndell Beaver, Judith Bernstein–Gaeta, Eliza S. Crane, Khalil Gharbieh, Peter T. Grossi, Brittany E. Hamelers, David E. Kouba, M. Sean Laane, Robert Alexander McCarter, Mallori Browne Openchowski, Carolyn A. Pearce, Jason Alan Ross, Rosemary F. Smith, Michael S. Tye, Geoffrey Michael, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Gregory G. Katsas, Junius C. McElveen, Jr., Jones Day, William R. Stein, John F. Wood, Hughes Hubbard & Reed, LLP, Robert A. McCarter, III, James A. Wilson, William A. Yoder, Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Amir C. TayraniMiguel A. Estrada Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Washington, DC, Elizabeth Blackwell, Michael B. Minton, Thompson Coburn, LLP, Saint Louis, MO, Eric K. Blumenfeld, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Jersey City, NJ, Mary Katherine Gates Calderon, Andrew D. Carpenter, Andrew J. Coleman, Christopher V. Cotton, William J. Crampton, Stanley D. Davis, Kelly H. Foos, Gregory L. Fowler, Christopher P. Grambling, Robert D. Homolka, Lori McGroder, Maria Salcedo, Stephanie Sowers Sankar, Lori R. Schultz, Connor Jay Sears, Bruce R. Tepikian, Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Angela M. Splittgerber, Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, LLP, Kansas City, MO, Karen Bray, Stephen L. Saxl, Alan E. Mansfield, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Florham Park, NJ, Kamie F. Brown, Ray Quinney & Nebeker, PC, Salt Lake City, UT, B. Kurt Copper, Leslie E. McCarthy, Jones Day, Columbus, OH, Bonnie C. Daboll, Cathy Ambersley Kamm, Cecilia M. Bidwell, Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Tampa, FL, Rachel E. Daly, J. Keith Tart, Geoffrey K. Beach, Hada De Varona Haulsee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Winston–Salem, NC, Mitzie L. Dobson, Bonne Bridges Muller O'Keefe & Nichols, Los Angeles, CA, Brian A. Foster, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, CA, Nathan D. Foster, Thomas W. Stoever, Jr., Arnold & Porter, LLP, Denver, CO, Kathleen A. Gallagher, Beck Redden & Secrest, Houston, TX, Lucy E. Mason, Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Alison M. Stocking, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Brian Joseph Murray, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, Joseph Matthew Rabil, David C. Reeves, Thomas Cleveland Sullivan, Jeffrey Alan Yarbrough, Moseley, Charles M. Trippe, Dana G. Bradford, II, Smith Gambrell & Russell, LLP, John A. Devault, III, Bedell Dittmar Devault Pillans & Coxe, Andrew J. Knight, II, Moseley Prichard Parrish Knight & Jones, Janna M. Blasingame, The Wilner Firm, PA, Jacksonville, FL, Carl L. Rowley, Susan L. Werstak, Thompson Coburn, LLP, Saint Louis, MO, Maria H. Ruiz, Gregory G. Katsas, Peter T. Grossi, Kelly Anne Luther, Charles Richard Allan Morse, for Defendants–Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket Nos. 3:09–cv–10000–TJC–JBT, 3:09–cv–10000–WGY–JBT.

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and SILER,^* Circuit Judges.

Opinion

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:

These consolidated appeals are yet another chapter in the ongoing tobacco litigation that began as a class action in Florida courts more than two decades ago and has since swollen the federal docket with thousands of individual cases. Today we are asked to decide the fate of 588 personal injury cases filed on behalf of purportedly living cigarette smokers who, as it turns out, were dead at the time of filing (a group we shall call the “predeceased plaintiffs”), 160 loss of consortium cases filed on behalf of spouses and children¹ of these predeceased plaintiffs, and two wrongful death cases filed more than two years after the decedent-smoker's death. These cases all suffered from various patent defects. As any lawyer worth his salt knows, a dead person cannot maintain a personal injury claim; under Florida law, a loss of consortium claim is “derivative in nature and wholly dependent on [the injured party's] ability to recover,” Faulkner v. Allstate Ins. Co., 367 So.2d 214, 217 (Fla.1979) ;² and claims brought pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death Act are subject to a two-year limitations period, Fla. Stat. § 95.11(4)(d). Plaintiffs' counsel sought leave from the District Court to amend the complaints in these cases to fix these defects. For reasons we will discuss in detail, the District Court denied those requests and accordingly dismissed these cases.³

Despite the thousands of pages of briefing to the District Court and to this court, the root of the problem in all these cases is simple. Back in 2008, when these cases were originally filed, the law firm that brought them didn't have the time or resources required to fully investigate all the complaints (the firm in question filed claims on behalf of over 4,000 individuals). As a result, problem after problem cropped up once the District Court started going through the inventory of cases: there were personal injury claims filed on behalf of deceased smokers, wrongful death claims filed by “survivors” of smokers who were still living, cases filed as a result of “clerical errors,” multiple cases filed for the same person, cases filed for people the law firm had no contact with, claims that had already been adjudicated by another court, cases filed for people who didn't want to pursue a lawsuit, and claims filed long after the relevant limitations period had run. Over and over, plaintiffs' counsel explained that these problems were the result of the unique logistical difficulties involved in managing so many individual lawsuits. And over and over the District Court reminded counsel that a lawyer's responsibilities to the court are not diluted even by an ocean of claims.

The defects that led to today's consolidated appeals all stem from counsel's failure to obtain accurate information regarding whether or when certain smokers died. The problems came to light in early 2012—four years after the cases were filed—after the court ordered that each plaintiff submit answers to a basic questionnaire that asked, among other things, if the smoker whose injuries or death formed the basis for the lawsuit was alive and, if not, when he or she died. Once the completed questionnaires revealed that hundreds of claims were invalid as filed, plaintiffs' counsel sought leave to amend their defective pleadings to add legal claims and factual allegations that should have appeared in the original complaints and, in some cases, to substitute in a new party who should have been the named plaintiff from the beginning.⁴ The District Court denied counsel's requests because, among other reasons, these problems could have been avoided if counsel had properly investigated the claims, and even if that lack of diligence were somehow excusable, counsel failed to inform the court that so many complaints were defective. Having denied counsel's motions for leave to amend and substitute parties, the court dismissed these facially invalid complaints.

After hearing oral argument and considering the parties' briefs in each of these consolidated appeals, we find the District Court to have acted within its discretion when it denied plaintiffs' counsel's motions to amend and substitute. Accordingly, we affirm the court's dismissals of all these cases.

In part I of this opinion, we briefly describe the state-court proceedings and the facts leading up to the filing of ...