Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
| Decision Date | 11 August 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-10963.,00-10963. |
| Parties | Brenda D. TILLMAN, as Executrix under the Last Will and Testament of Kalen Oliver, Tillman, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Ross Diamond, III, Diamond, Hasser & Frost, Mobile, AL, for Tillman.
William H. Brooks, Samuel H. Franklin, Lightfoot, Franklin, White & Lucas, Birmingham, AL, Thomas D. Schroeder, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.C., Winston-Salem, NC, Joseph P. Babington, John Townsend Dukes, Frederick G. Helmsing, Helmsing, Lyons, Sims & Leach, P.C., Mobile, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
Before RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.1
On June 13, 2001, we issued an opinion in this case in which, inter alia, we asked the Alabama Supreme Court to answer a certified question regarding the interpretation of Alabama law concerning the liability of retailers who sell cigarettes. See Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 253 F.3d 1302, 1307-08 (11th Cir.2001). Federal jurisdiction of this case turns on the answer to our certified question because, as we stated, "If the complaint states a cause of action against retailers, there is no federal jurisdiction based on diversity." Id. at 1307. The question is as follows:
WHETHER THERE IS ANY POTENTIAL CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER ANY THEORY AGAINST ANY RETAIL DEFENDANTS INCLUDING THOSE THAT EMPLOY PHARMACISTS WHO SELL CIGARETTES FOR CLAIMS BROUGHT UNDER THE ALABAMA EXTENDED MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY DOCTRINE, OR PREMISED ON NEGLIGENCE, WANTONNESS, OR CIVIL CONSPIRACY UNDER ALABAMA LAW.
In its response, the Alabama Supreme Court answered our certified question in the affirmative as to the claims against retail defendants premised on negligence and wantonness, rejecting the retail defendants' argument that Tillman's negligence and wantonness claims merge into her Alabama Extended Manufacture's Liability Doctrine statutory claims. See Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., ___ So.2d ___, ___, 2003 WL 21489707, No 1001644, slip op. at 14-15 (Ala. June 30, 2003). With potential state law claims against the three Alabama retail defendants, the district court erroneously asserted federal jurisdiction on the ground that they had been fraudulently joined.
As we explained in our June 13, 2001 opinion, if there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against any of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to the state court. Tillman, 253 F.3d at 1305.
We deny Reynolds' motion for leave to file a supplemental brief addressing the Alabama Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. Philip Morris Usa
...the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to the state court." Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir.2003) (per curiam). In Tillman, after receiving an answer to a certified question from the Alabama Supreme Court regarding the lia......
-
Bowles v. Constellation Brands, Inc.
...Ctrs., Inc. , 577 F.3d 752, 764 (7th Cir. 2009) ; Travis v. Irby , 326 F.3d 644, 647–49 (5th Cir. 2003) ; Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco , 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) ; Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co. , 977 F.2d 848, 851 (3d Cir. 1992) ; see, e.g. , Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank , No. ......
-
Onelum v. Best Buy Stores L.P.
...remand the case to the state court.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir.2003)). In determining whether a defendant was joined fraudulently, the courts must resolve “all disputed questions o......
-
Solar Eclipse Inv. Fund VII v. T-Mobile U.S., Inc.
... ... proper and remand the case to the state court.” Tillman ... v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir ... ...