Castano v. American Tobacco Co.

Decision Date23 May 1996
Docket NumberNo. 95-30725,95-30725
Parties, 34 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1167 Dianne CASTANO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Bettye A. Barrios, Johnson, Johnson, Barrios & Yacoubian, New Orleans, LA, Melvin M. Belli, San Francisco, CA, Joseph M. Bruno, Bruno & Bruno, New Orleans, LA, Kenneth M. Carter, New Orleans, LA, Bruce C. Dean, New Orleans, LA, Wendell H. Gauthier, Daniel G. Abel, Dana Kim Cormier, Julie B. Beiser, Gauthier & Murphy, Metairie, LA, Christopher M. Guidroz, New Orleans, LA, John B. Krentel, Metairie, LA, Walter J. Leger, Jr., New Orleans, LA, Arthur R. Miller, Cambridge, MA, Ronald L. Motley, Charleston, SC, Stephen B. Murray, New Orleans, LA, Charles W. Patrick, Jr., Charleston, SC, Robert Leland Redfearn, Jr., New Orleans, LA, Michael X. St. Martin, Houma, LA, Scott McCullen Baldwin, John Browning Baldwin, Baldwin & Baldwin, Marshall, TX, Calvin Clifford Fayard, Jr., Denham Springs, LA, Robert D. Greenbaum, Philadelphia, PA, George Febiger Riess, New Orleans, LA, Peter J. Butler, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, LA, Andrew W. Hutton, Wichita, KS, Wells Talbot Watson, Lake Charles, LA, Richard M. Heimann, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, Bernstein, San Francisco, CA, Ralph Irving Knowles, Jr., Atlanta, GA, Arnold Levin, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran and Berman, Philadelphia, PA, John R. Climaco, Climaco, Climaco, Seminatore, Lefkowitz and Garofoli, Cleveland, OH, Jodi W. Flowers, Susan Nial, Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, Charleston, SC, Russ M. Herman, Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar, New Orleans, LA, Francis "Brother" Hare, Jr., Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, Birmingham, AL, Gayle L. Troutwine, Michael L. Williams, Williams and Troutwine, Portlant, OR, John P. Kopesky, Sheller, Ludwig & Badey, Philadelphia, PA, Stanley M. Chesley, Waite & Schneider, Cincinnati, OH, John P. Coale, Diane E. Cooley, Coale, Allen & Van Susteren, Washington, DC, Margaret Moses Branch, Branch Law Firm, Albuquerque, NM, Perry Weitz, New York City, Louie J. Roussel, III, Metairie, LA, Edwin Rene Murray, Edwin R. Murray & Associates, New Orleans, LA, Sherrill Patricia Hondorf, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, Cincinnati, OH, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Steven E. Fineman, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Barnstein, San Francisco, CA, Dianne M. Nast, Roda & Nast, Lancaster, PA, Richard Alan Daynard, Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, MA, Jorge Ortiz-Brunet, Ortiz, Toro & Ortiz-Brunet, Hato Rey, PR, Charles Zimmerman, Zimmerman & Reed, Minneapolis, MN, Jack David Maistros, Michael V. Kelly, Cleveland, OH, Martis Ann Brachtl, Brian Campf, Goodkind, Labaton, Rudoff & Sucharow, New York City, Kenneth S. Canfield, Atlanta, GA, Louis Gottlieb, New York City, William O. Dougherty, San Diego, CA, Edwin David Hoskins, John C.M. Angelos, Office of Peter G. Angelos, Towson, MD, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel, Landry & Becnel, Reserve, LA, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Peter J. McKenna, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York City, Kenneth Winston Starr, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC, Paul R. Duke, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, Thomas E. Silfen, Laura Jean Hines, Arnold & Porter, Washington, DC, Robert C. Heim, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, PA, for all defendants-appellants.

Joy Goldberg Braun, Robert E. Winn, Sessions & Fishman, New Orleans, LA, Bruce

G. Sheffler, Thomas E. Bezanson, Mary T. Yelenick, Chadbourne & Parke, New York City, for American Tobacco Co. and American Brands Incorporated.

Carmelite M. Bertaut, Charles L. Chassaignac, Peter A. Feringa, Jr., Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toler & Sarpy, New Orleans, LA, for Lorillard, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Batus Holdings, Inc., and Batus, Inc.

James Thomas Newsom, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Kansas City, MO, for Lorillard, Inc., Phillip Morris, Inc., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Batus Holdings, Inc., Batus, Inc., Loews Corp., Philip Morris Companies, Inc., and Lorrillard Tobacco Co.

John Mason McCollam, Steven W. Copley, Gordon, Arata, McCollam & Duplantis, New Orleans, LA, for Lorillard, Inc., Loews Corp., and Lorrillard Tobacco Co.

Gary R. Long, James A. Wilson, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Kansas City, MO, for Lorillard, Inc., Phillip Morris, Inc., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Batus Holdings, Inc., Batus, Inc., Loews Corp., Philip Morris Companies, Inc., and Lorrillard Tobacco Co.

Allen Rennie Purvis, Kansas City, MO, for Phillip Morris Incorporated.

Scott Edward Delacroix, Charles F. Gay, Jr., Thomas J. Wyllie, Adams and Reese, New Orleans, LA, for Phillip Morris, Inc., and Philip Morris Companies, Inc.

Stephen H. Kupperman, Phillip A. Wittmann, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann & Hutchinson, New Orleans, LA, for RJR Nabisco, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Dorothy Hudson Wimberly, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann & Hutchinson, New Orleans, LA, S. Ann Saucer, Powell & Associates, Dallas, TX, Paul G. Crist, Cleveland, OH, Theodore Martin Grossman, Hugh R. Whiting, Mark A. Belasic, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Cleveland, OH, for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Madeleine M. Fischer, New Orleans, LA, Joseph J. Lowenthal, Jr., John J. Weigel, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, New Orleans, LA, James V. Kearney, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon, New Orleans, LA, Aaron H. Marks, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, New York City, for Liggett Group, Inc., Liggett & Myers, Inc., and Brooke Group, Ltd.

Francis K. Decker, Jr., New York City, for Liggett Group Incorporated.

Griffin B. Bell, Richard A. Schneider, King & Spalding, Atlanta, GA, Gordon A. Smith, Atlanta, GA, Steven D. McCormick, Michelle H. Browdy, Andrew R. McGaan, Chicago, IL, David M. Bernick, Chicago, IL, for Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

Charles William Schmidt, III, Christovich & Kearney, New Orleans, LA, for U.S. Tobacco Co., Loews Corp., and UST, Inc.

Alan H. Goodman, Thomas Mente Benjamin, Lemle & Kelleher, New Orleans, LA, for The Tobacco Institute, Inc.

Linda Susan Mullenix, Austin, TX, Jan S. Amundson, National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, DC, for National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) amicus curiae.

Stephen A. Bokat, Washington, DC, Robin S. Conrad, Washington, DC, for Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. amicus curiae.

John H. Beisner, Brian David Boyle, Barton Samuel Aronson, O'Melveny & Myers, Washington, DC, Hugh F. Young, Jr., Product Liability Advisory Council, Reston, VA, for Product Liability Advisory Council (PLAC) amicus curiae.

Paul D. Kamenar, Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, DC, Daniel J. Popeo, Washington, DC, Arvin Maskin, Konrad L. Cailteux, John H. Bae, David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City, for Washington Legal Foundation, amicus curiae.

Jack R. Bierig, Bruce M. Zessar, Sidley & Austin, Chicago, IL, for American Medical Association amicus curiae.

Gloria M. Janata, The Children's Health Fund, New York City, for Children's Health Fund amicus curiae.

Katherine J. Pohlman, Edina, MN, for National Association of School Nurses amicus curiae.

Matthew L. Myers, Asbill, Junkin & Myers, Washington, DC, for American Heart

Ass'n, American Cancer Soc., and American Lung Ass'n, amicus curiae.

Carol L. Galloway, Department of Health and Hospitals for the State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals amicus curiae.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before SMITH, DUHE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

In what may be the largest class action ever attempted in federal court, the district court in this case embarked "on a road certainly less traveled, if ever taken at all," Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 160 F.R.D. 544, 560 (E.D.La.1995) (citing EDWARD C. LATHAM, THE POETRY OF ROBERT FROST, "THE ROAD NOT TAKENN" 105 (1969)), and entered a class certification order. The court defined the class as:

(a) All nicotine-dependent persons in the United States ... who have purchased and smoked cigarettes manufactured by the defendants;

(b) the estates, representatives, and administrators of these nicotine-dependent cigarette smokers; and

(c) the spouses, children, relatives and "significant others" of these nicotine-dependent cigarette smokers as their heirs or survivors.

Id. at 560-61. The plaintiffs limit the claims to years since 1943. 1

This matter comes before us on interlocutory appeal, under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), of the class certification order. Concluding that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class, we reverse.

I.
A. The Class Complaint

The plaintiffs 2 filed this class complaint against the defendant tobacco companies 3 and the Tobacco Institute, Inc., seeking compensation solely for the injury of nicotine addiction. The gravamen of their complaint is the novel and wholly untested theory that the defendants fraudulently failed to inform consumers that nicotine is addictive and manipulated the level of nicotine in cigarettes to sustain their addictive nature. The class complaint alleges nine causes of action: fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress, violation of state consumer protection statutes, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, strict product liability, and redhibition pursuant to the Louisiana Civil Code.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory 4 and punitive damages 5 and attorneys' fees. 6 In addition, the plaintiffs seek equitable relief for fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, violation of consumer protection statutes, and breach of express and implied warranty. The equitable remedies include a declaration that defendants are financially responsible for notifying all class members of nicotine's addictive nature, a declaration that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
648 cases
  • In re EpiPen Marketing, Sales Practices & Antitrust Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • February 27, 2020
    ...in other situations. Senne v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp., 934 F.3d 918, 928 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 741 (5th Cir. 1996) ("In a multi-state class action, variations in state law may swamp any common issues and defeat predominance."). Indeed, th......
  • Albany Cnty. v. McKesson Corp. (In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • September 24, 2020
    ...411 (collecting cases). The Fifth Circuit has described the "narrow view" in a footnote. See id. at 412 (citing Castano v. Am. Tobacco , 84 F.3d 734, 745 n.21 (5th Cir. 1996) ). Although the Eleventh Circuit "referenced" the narrow view "with tenuous support," Martin , 896 F.3d at 412 (citi......
  • Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, CV 98-5605 DDP (CWx).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • January 25, 1999
    ...certification is appropriate. See Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1308 (9th Cir.1977); Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 740 (5th Cir.1996). In determining whether to certify a class, the Court must conduct a rigorous analysis of whether the Rule 23 prer......
  • Barnes v. American Tobacco Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • November 12, 1998
    ...We note that the individual issues raised by cigarette litigation often preclude class certification. See, e.g., Castano v. The American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir.1996) (decertifying 23(b)(3) class because individual issues predominated); Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 firm's commentaries
  • The ERISA Litigation Newsletter (December 2013)
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 18, 2013
    ...See Title VII §703(n), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(n). [12] Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4) (emphasis added). [13] See, e.g., Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 745 n.21 (5th Cir. [14] See, e.g., McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 672 F.3d 482, 491-92 (7th Cir. 2012), cert......
  • The Rise Of Smaller Class Actions
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • August 7, 2014
    ...Prod. Liab. Litig., 522 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2008); In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 288 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2002); Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996). The recent appellate court decisions have circumvented the predominance of individualized issues of causation by recognizing......
  • The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 22, 2005
    ...citizens would not be subject to the Act, since no plaintiff would be a citizen of a state where Corporation X is not also a citizen. But if the class action is brought against Corporation X on behalf of citizens from any other combination of two states, such as New York and New Jersey, or any th......
  • Rule 23(b)(3) Superiority Problems: Proceeding With Both A Class Action And Individual Suits
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 3, 2001
    ...certifying any remaining claims because of manageability concerns. Relying on principles discussed in Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) -- a mass tort case -- we successfully argued that, because plaintiff's reliance-based Section 10(b) claims were unfit for class......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Class Actions Handbook
    • January 1, 2018
    ...446452 (E.D. Mich. 2010), 252 Cason-Merenda v. VHS of Michigan, Inc . , 2014 WL 905828 (E.D. Mich. 2014), 58 Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996), 180, 192 Catfish Antitrust Litig., In re , 826 F. Supp. 1019 (N.D. Miss. 1993), 48, 159, 161, 162, 163, 176, 177, 178, 181 Ca......
  • The Pesky Persistence of Class Action Tolling in Mass Tort Multidistrict Litigation
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 74-2, January 2014
    • January 1, 2014
    ...any of the exceptions to the rule that confines federal appellate jurisdiction to final decisions.”). But see Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 737 (5th Cir. 1996) (exercising jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of a class certification order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and......
  • Money matters: judicial market interventions creating subsidies and awarding fees and costs in individual and aggregate litigation.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 148 No. 6, June 2000
    • June 1, 2000
    ...(9th Cir. 1996) (decertifying a class seeking redress for alleged injuries from a drug for epilepsy); and Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 737 (5th Cir. 1996) (decertifying a class including "all nicotine-dependent persons in the United States ... who have purchased and smoked ......
  • Antitrust Class Certification Standards
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Class Actions Handbook
    • January 1, 2018
    ...672, 674 (7th Cir. 2001); see also In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 288 F.3d 1012, 1018 (7th Cir. 2002); Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 741 (5th Cir. 1996); In re Am. Med. Sys., 75 F.3d 1069, 1085 (6th Cir. 1996). 150. See ABA SECTION OF ANTITRUST LAW, INDIRECT PURCHASER LITIGAT......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT