R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle
| Decision Date | 31 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2797,94-2797 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D284 R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Philip Morris Incorporated ("Philip Morris U.S.A."), Lorillard Tobacco Company, Lorillard, Inc., the American Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Liggett Group, Inc., Dosal Tobacco Corp., Council for Tobacco Research-U.S.A., Inc., and Tobacco Institute, Inc., Brooke Group, Ltd., Inc., Appellants, v. Howard A. ENGLE, M.D., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
An appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court of Dade County; Harold Solomon, Judge.
Popham Haik Schnobrich & Kaufman and R. Benjamin Reid and Douglas J. Chumbley and Paul L. Nettleton; Coll Davidson Carter Smith Salter & Barkett and Barry R. Davidson, Miami; Dechert Price & Rhodes and Robert C. Heim, Philadelphia, PA, Clarke Silverglate Williams & Montgomery and Kelly Anne Luther, Miami, for appellants.
Stanley M. Rosenblatt and Susan Rosenblatt, Miami, for appellees.
Before HUBBART, GODERICH and GREEN, JJ.
This is an interlocutory appeal from a non-final trial court order certifying a plaintiff's class in a products liability action brought by certain named plaintiffs against the defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and a series of other tobacco companies. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal taken by the defendants and affirm with one modification. Art. V, Sec. 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vii).
The plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, seek damages in the action below for certain diseases and medical conditions allegedly contracted by the plaintiffs due to their asserted addiction to smoking cigarettes containing nicotine produced by the defendants. The operative complaint alleges causes of action for strict liability in tort, fraud and misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud and misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fitness, negligence, breach of express warranty, intentional infliction of mental distress, and equitable relief. Upon motion of the plaintiffs, the trial court certified the following plaintiff's class in the order under review:
The defendants appeal this order. They have raised no points on appeal, however, challenging the trial court's determination that the basic prerequisites for class representation under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.220(a) have been satisfied in this case--namely, that (1) the members of a class are so numerous that a separate joinder of each member is impracticable; (2) the claim of the representative party raises questions of law or fact common to questions of law or fact raised by the claim of each member of the class; (3) the claim of the representative party is typical of the claim of each member of the class; and (4) the representative party can fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of each member of the class. 1 Indeed, as the trial court correctly found, our recent decision in Broin v. Philip Morris Co., 641 So.2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), rev. denied, 654 So.2d 919 (Fla.1995), involving a similar products liability class action against various tobacco companies clearly compels this result.
Instead, the central point on appeal raised by defendants is that the individual issues in this case predominate over the common issues, and, therefore, the plaintiffs have not made the requisite "predominance" showing under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.220(b)(3) that "the questions of law or fact common to the claim or defense of the representative party and the claim or defense of each member of the class predominate over any question of law or fact affecting only individual members of the class...." We cannot agree. Although certain individual issues will have to be tried as to each class member, principally the issue of damages, the basic issues of liability common to all members of the class will clearly predominate over the individual issues. We also reject the defendant's point on appeal that the class was not adequately defined, as well as the defendant's point concerning the issue of providing notice to class members. Broin; see Friends of Chamber Music v. City & County of Denver, 696 P.2d 309, 317-18 (Colo.1985); In re Colt Indus. Shareholder Litigation, 155 A.D.2d 154, 553 N.Y.S.2d 138, 140-42 (1990), aff'd as modified, 77 N.Y.2d 185, 565 N.Y.S.2d 755, 566 N.E.2d 1160 (1991); American Express Travel Related Servs. v. Walton, 883 S.W.2d 703, 708 (Tex.Ct.App.1994).
We find merit, however, in the final point on appeal raised by the defendants--namely, that the class action as certified would unduly burden Florida courts and taxpayers. We agree that the plaintiffs have not made the requisite "superiority" showing as to the certified class under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.220(b)(3), namely, that "class representation is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." The trial court in the order under review stated that the certified class is "in excess of one million addicted smokers...." Both parties agree that individual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. American Tobacco Co.
...Cir. Ct. Jan. 28, 1998) (certifying class of Maryland smokers seeking compensatory and punitive damages); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 672 So.2d 39 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1996), rev. denied, 682 So.2d 1100 (1996) (certification of state-wide class of tobacco smokers suing for damages cause......
-
Schnall v. At & T Wireless Services, Inc.
...an unwarranted and unnecessary burden on the state judicial system, all at a large cost to taxpayers. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 672 So.2d 39, 41 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1996) ("No doubt a tremendous number of retired judges, special masters, and general masters would have to be appo......
-
Liggett Group, Inc. v. Engle
...that contain nicotine." Thereafter in 1996, this Court reduced the class to include Florida smokers only. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 672 So.2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). This Court did not approve any trial plan for the case, because no trial plan had been issued at that In February of......
-
Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
...the class, but reducing its scope to include only Florida citizens and residents (the "Engle class"). R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 672 So.2d 39, 40-42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ("Engle I").2 On February 4, 1998, the trial court issued its first trial plan dividing the trial proceedings into......
-
Tobacco Industry Influence on the American Law Institute's Restatements of Torts and Implications for Its Conflict of Interest Policies
...(Jan. 31, 2008), http://news.opb.org/article/oregon-court-reaffirms-judgment-tobacco-lawsuit/. 227. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 672 So. 2d 39, 40 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996). The court replaced the words “United States” with “Florida.” Id. at 42. 228. Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 94......
-
Class actions: fundamentals of certification analysis.
...[42] Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 999, 1006 (11th Cir. 1997). [43] See, e.g., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 672 So. 2d 39, 42 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1996) (restricting class definition to Florida residents only, and holding that national class was "totally unmanageable and......
-
Considerations in class certification.
...certification bears the burden of making an affirmative showing that the prerequisites are met. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 672 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Wilson, 305 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). * Numerosity. In order to satisfy the num......
-
Florida tightens its restrictions on class action lawsuits.
...residency restrictions based upon exceptional needs when determining class certification, such as in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 672 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In Engle, a products liability action against tobacco companies, the Third District Court of Appeal modified a trial cou......