Simon v. Philip Morris Inc.

• Citation: 124 F.Supp.2d 46
• Decision Date: 07 December 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99 CV 1988.,99 CV 1988.
• Parties: Ellis SIMON; Trudy Hunt; Tony Younany; George Oko; Jacqueline Hounchell; Sylvia Whol, Larry Abbott; Estate of George E. Patterson; Estate of Willie Grier; Estate of Joyce Fogliano; Estate of Virginia Overstreet; Estate of Evelyn Schrieber; and Estate of Stanley Kesselman, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation; B.A.T. Industries, P.L.C. The American Tobacco Company; Lorillard Tobacco Company, Inc.; and Liggett & Myers, Inc., Defendants. (Simon I).
• Court: United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)

124 F.Supp.2d 46

Ellis SIMON; Trudy Hunt; Tony Younany; George Oko; Jacqueline Hounchell; Sylvia Whol, Larry Abbott; Estate of George E. Patterson; Estate of Willie Grier; Estate of Joyce Fogliano; Estate of Virginia Overstreet; Estate of Evelyn Schrieber; and Estate of Stanley Kesselman, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation; B.A.T. Industries, P.L.C. The American Tobacco Company; Lorillard Tobacco Company, Inc.; and Liggett & Myers, Inc., Defendants (Simon I).

No. 99 CV 1988.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

December 7, 2000.

Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C., Baltimore, MD by Joshua Kassner, John Angelos, O'Donoghue & O'Donoghue, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff National Asbestos.

Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, New York City by Melvyn I. Weiss, Beth A. Kaswan, Michael C. Spencer, for Plaintiff Bergeron.

Dewey Ballantine, LLP, New York City by Vincent Fitzpatrick, Heather K. McDevitt, Joseph Angland, for Plaintiff Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

Weitz & Luxenberg, New York City by Richard L. Akel, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernstein, New York City by Steven E. Fineman, Elizabeth J. Cabraiser, Roda & Nast, P.C., Lancaster, PA, by Dianne M. Nast, Wait, Chesley, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, Cincinnati, OH by Stanley Chesley, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Washington, DC, Brown Rudnick Freed & Gesmer, Boston, MA by Gregory T. Carnold, Wayne F. Dennison, Sheller Ludwig & Badley Philadelphia, PA, by Charles Mangan, for Plaintiff in Simon I & Simon II.

Ness Motley Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, Mount Pleasant, SC, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, New York City by Peter A. Bicks, James L. Stengel, Michael T. Stolper, for Plaintiff Falise.

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, New York City by Kevin J. Dunne, Eric M. Kraus, Kirkland & Ellis, New York

City by Marjorie P. Lindblom, David Bernick, Andrew R. McGaan, Deirdre A. Fox, Boston, MA by U. Gwyn Williams, Winston & Strawn, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Brown & Williamson.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, MO by William L. Allinder, Lori Connors McGroder, for Defendant Lorillard Tobacco Co.

Harold Keith Gordon, Byron G. Stier, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, New York City, Hugh R. Whiting, Theodore M. Grossman, Mark A. Belasic, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Cleveland, OH, Jerome R. Doak, Margaret I. Lyle, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Dallas, TX, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, Winston-Salem, NC, by Ursula M. Henninger, for Defendant R.J. Reynolds.

Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York City by Alan Mansfield, Robert J. Kirshenberg, Stephen L. Saxl, for Defendant Lorillard Tobacco.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, New York City by Adam I. Stein, for Defendant British American Tobacco.

Goodwin, Proctor & Hoar, LLP, Boston, MA, by U. Gwyn Williams, Winston & Strawn, Chicago, Ill, Dechert Price & Rhoads, New York City, by Peter L. Critchell, Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, Washington, DC by John B. Williams, Thomas W. Mitchell, Goodwin, Proctor & Hoar, Boston, MA by Kenneth J. Parsigian, Paul E. Namser, Arnold & Porter, Washington, DC by Murray R. Garnick, Peter Bleakley, for Defendant Philip Morris.

Debevoise & Plimpton, New York City by Anne E. Cohen, Harry Zirlin, Steven S. Michaels, for Defendant Council for Tobacco Research USA, Inc.

Davis & Gilbert LLP, New York City by Bruce J. Ginsberg, for Defendant Hill & Knowlton.

Seward & Kissel LLP, New York City by Jacob Horowitz, for Defendant Tobacco Institute.

Jacob Medinger & Finnegan, New York City by Bryan A. McKenna, for Defendant Smokeless Tobacco.

Skadden Arps Slate Meaher & Flom, New York City by Arthur H. Aizley, Eric S. Sarner, for Defendant U.S. Tobacco.

Kasowtiz Benson Torres & Friedman, New York City by Leonard A. Feiwus, for Defendant Liggett.

Chadbourne & Parke, LLP, New York City by Robert S. Pruyne, for Defendant British American Tobacco.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.

                                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
                  I. Introduction ..................................................................49
                 II. Pending Tobacco Cases .........................................................50
                     A. H.K. Porter Company v. B.A.T. Industries, et al ............................51
                     B. National Asbestos v. Philip Morris, Incorporated, et al ....................51
                     C. Blue Cross and Blue Shield, et al. v. Philip Morris, Incorporated, et al ...52
                     D. Simon, (formerly Stugeon) et al. v. Philip Morris, Incorporated, et al .....52
                     E. Bergeron, et al. v. Philip Morris, Incorporated, et al .....................52
                     F. Falise, et al. v. American Tobacco, et al ..................................52
                     G. William Decie, et al. v. American Tobacco, et al ...........................52
                     H. James Mason, et al. v. American Tobacco, et al .............................53
                     I. James Ebert v. Philip Morris, Incorporated, et al ..........................53
                     J. Simon, et al. v. American Tobacco, et al ...................................53
                     K. Raymark Industries v. American Tobacco, et al ..............................53
                III. Choice of Law .................................................................53
                     A. Choice of Law Revolution: Mechanical Lex Loci to Pragmatic Interests .......54
                

                        1. Babcock v. Jackson .....................................................54
                        2. Refinements to Babcock .................................................57
                           a. Schultz .............................................................58
                           b. Cases Involving Mass Disasters ......................................60
                               i. Airplane Crashes ................................................60
                              ii. Products liability ..............................................61
                        3. History ................................................................62
                           a. Antiquity ...........................................................63
                           b. Middle Ages .........................................................64
                           c. English Law .........................................................64
                           d. The Nineteenth Century and Early American Conflicts Law .............64
                           e. Current Choice of Law Theory in the United States ...................66
                        4. Scholarship, Comparative Statutory Law, and Precedent in Complex
                           Litigation .............................................................67
                     B. Constitutional Limits .....................................................69
                     C. Interest Analysis .........................................................71
                        1. New York's Conflicts of Law Principles .................................71
                        2. New York's Interests In The Instant Dispute ............................72
                        3. Depecage ...............................................................75
                     D. Manageability .............................................................77
                     E. Summation .................................................................77
                 IV. Conclusion ...................................................................78
                

I. Introduction

In Simon I (99 CV 1988), a class claims pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (1) compensatory damages for cancer due to its members' smoking, and (2) punitive damages. Simon II (00 CV 5332) involves a broader class of all persons who may have been injured by tobacco; it includes those suing in Simon I. See Simon v. Philip Morris Inc., 2000 WL 1658337 (E.D.N.Y., Nov 06, 2000) (NO. 99 CV 1988).

It is suggested that, with limited exceptions described below, the individual and class action suits pending in this court (see Part II, infra), be tried as part of Simon II; all of their allegations and claims would be embodied in Simon II. The parties may amend Simon II to include additional claims for tobacco-related injuries due to passive exposure of non-smokers and in other respects to cover the universe of private Tobacco claims covered by the proposed Simon II class action.

A sampling of individual compensatory claims could be tried in Simon II in connection with the compensation opt-out class. Trial in this court would permit decision on general issues of fact and law such as fraud and general causation applicable to the entire Simon II opt-out class. Individual's compensation claims could then be transferred to appropriate federal district courts throughout the country for decision on such issues as individual causation, individual damages and individual statutes of limitations defenses.

The number of individual compensatory claims tried in this court might be sufficient, if selected according to appropriate statistical and other principles, to provide a basis for determination of total probable compensatory damages throughout the nation. This projection might permit the jury in this court to fix total allowable punitive damages for the nation in the Simon II non-opt-out punitive class, to be disbursed in a modified form of fluid recovery to health, research and other protective institutions and to persons injured by tobacco requiring special assistance.

Daubert and other hearings would be required to determine the statistical viability of models supporting this approach. A number of such hearings have already been held and rulings made in cases being prepared for trial in this court. See Part II, infra.

While Simon II is being prepared for trial there appears to be no reason why the individual claims already scheduled for trial should not go forward. A number of other individual cases may also be set for trial while preparation of the Simon II trial is underway.

It is appropriate to deal with the issue of class action certification in Simon II rather than in Simon I. Simon II, as ultimately amended, would then cover all...