Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. failed to meet its burden to show fraudulent joinder in a case alleging various tobacco companies had aggressively advertised light and ultra-light cigarettes.

Here, smoker Benjamin Mathews sued several tobacco companies, alleging state causes of action, including design defect, negligence, and fraud. The plaintiff asserted that in their aggressive advertising, the defendants had fraudulently led smokers to believe light and ultra-light cigarettes were safer than traditional cigarettes. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that R.J. Reynolds had not met its burden of showing fraudulent joinder of Ligget Group LLC and Vector Group LTD, both Florida citizens.

Granting the motion, the district court held that the defendants must meet a heavy burden to show fraudulent joinder. Citing case law, the court said that to establish fraudulent joinder, the removing party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that either there is no possibility the plaintiff can establish a cause of action against the resident defendant or the plaintiff has fraudulently pleaded jurisdictional facts to bring the resident defendant into state court.

The court considered the tobacco company’s argument that Mathews could not establish a fraudulent conspiracy claim against Liggett and Vector because the Florida statute of repose bars his claim. The court noted that its task was to determine whether there was a possibility that the plaintiff’s claims against Ligget and Vector were not barred and whether they stated a valid cause of action. The court found that there was a possibility that the plaintiff could show that Liggett’s less-than-unequivocal product disclaimers had not precluded the plaintiff’s claim and that the company had misrepresented the nature of light and ultra-light cigarettes after October 2009, 12 years before the plaintiff filed suit.

Consequently, the court concluded that R.J. Reynolds had not met its burden, and remand was appropriate.

Citation: Mathews v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 2022 WL 3225365 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2022).

Plaintiff counsel: Allan B. Kaiser, Pinecrest, Fla.; and Michael R. Tein, Miami.