Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; and the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, a class-action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. The Xxxxx findings do not indicate that all cigarettes sold by each defendant were defective and unreasonably dangerous, nor do they specify what acts of negligence each defendant committed, or what information each defendant concealed. In the wake of Xxxxx, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are referred to as the Xxxxx Progeny cases. As of September 30, 2013, 1,961 cases were pending in federal court, and 3,226 cases were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 6,344 plaintiffs. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 17 additional cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred and four cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 2010, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for late 2013 and early 2014. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco’s right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a favorable verdict and is sometimes made through court-ordered mediations.
Appears in 1 contract
Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; , the Louisiana state court class-action case, Xxxxx x. American Tobacco Co., and the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, a class-action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the “Florida class” of approximately $145 billion against all defendants. In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside that Court, among other things, affirmed an appellate court’s reversal of the punitive damages award, prospectively decertified the classclass going forward, and preserved several of class-wide findings from the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseasestrial, including that nicotine is addictiveaddictive and cigarettes are defectively designed, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that authorized class members to avail themselves of these findings in individual lawsuits under certain conditions. After subsequent motions were defective and unreasonably dangerousresolved, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. The Xxxxx findings do not indicate that all cigarettes sold by each defendant Florida Supreme Court issued its mandate on January 11, 2007, thus beginning a one-year period in which former class members were defective and unreasonably dangerous, nor do they specify what acts of negligence each defendant committed, or what information each defendant concealedpermitted to file individual lawsuits. In October 2007, the wake U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants’ petition for writ of Xxxxx, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed certiorari. Individual Xxxxx Progeny cases are pending in both federal and state courts court in Florida. Such actions are referred to as the Xxxxx Progeny cases. As of September 30December 31, 20132011, 1,961 3,246 cases were pending in federal court, and 3,226 3,315 cases were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 6,344 7,852 plaintiffs. The number of cases will likely change due to individual plaintiffs being severed from multi-plaintiff cases and multi-plaintiff federal cases being dismissed or consolidated. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 17 46 additional cases that had been filed but not servedserved (with 319 plaintiffs). One hundred and four cases Fifty-seven trials have been tried occurred in Florida state and federal courts court since 20102009, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for late 2013 2012. As Xxxxx Progeny litigation has progressed, the federal and early 2014state court systems have adopted different rules to govern those cases, and both have courts issuing conflicting opinions. For example, in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx v. X. X. Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, held that the preserved Xxxxx findings establish only those issues “actually adjudicated” in the Xxxxx class trial. In other words, based on the decision in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, the Xxxxx findings would not prevent RJR Tobacco and other defendants from raising issues and defenses that were not, or may not have been, resolved against them in Xxxxx. The number court further held that an Xxxxx Progeny plaintiff bears the burden of pending cases fluctuates for showing, to a variety “reasonable degree of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgmentcertainty,” referred that any issue the plaintiff seeks to treat as established in his favor was, in fact, actually raised and resolved in Xxxxx. The court held that these standards were required by Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer preclusion law, and it reserved judgment on the question of judgment, if rejected whether the same standards were also required by the plaintiffDue Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Prior to the Eleventh Circuit decision in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, preserves RJR Tobacco’s right to recover attorneys’ fees under three federal district court judges (including the judge in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx) concluded that any broader use of the preserved Xxxxx findings would violate both Florida preclusion law in the event of a favorable verdict and is sometimes made through court-ordered mediationsfederal due process.
Appears in 1 contract
Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; the Louisiana state court class-action case, Xxxxx x. American Tobacco Co.; and the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, a class-class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotinemanufacturers, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the classa class of Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside reversed that award, prospectively decertified the Xxxxx class, and preserved several of the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved Xxxxx findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. The Xxxxx findings do not indicate that all cigarettes sold by each defendant were defective and unreasonably dangerous, nor do they specify what acts of negligence each defendant committed, or what information each defendant concealed. In the wake of Xxxxx, thousands Thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are referred to as the Xxxxx Progeny cases. As of September 30December 31, 20132012, 1,961 2,443 cases were pending in federal court, and 3,226 3,313 cases were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 6,344 6,937 plaintiffs. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 17 45 additional cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred and four Seventy-nine cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 2010, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for late 2013 and early 20142013. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco’s right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a favorable verdict and is sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. In each Xxxxx Progeny case, a central issue is the proper use of the Xxxxx findings preserved by the Florida Supreme Court. The federal and state courts that have addressed the question have adopted conflicting views. For example, in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx v. X. X. Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co ., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, held that the preserved Xxxxx findings establish only those issues “actually adjudicated” in the Xxxxx class trial. In other words, those findings would not prevent RJR Tobacco and other defendants from raising issues and defenses that were not, or may not have been, resolved against them in Xxxxx . The court further held that an Xxxxx Progeny plaintiff bears the burden of showing, to a “reasonable degree of certainty,” that any issue the plaintiff seeks to treat as established in his favor was, in fact, actually decided in Xxxxx . The court held that these standards were required by Florida preclusion law, and it reserved judgment on whether the same standards were also required by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Prior to the Eleventh Circuit decision in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx , three federal district court judges had concluded that any broader use of the preserved Xxxxx findings would violate both Florida preclusion law and federal due process.
Appears in 1 contract
Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; and the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, a class-class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. The Xxxxx findings do not indicate that all cigarettes sold by each defendant were defective and unreasonably dangerous, nor do they specify what acts of negligence each defendant committed, or what information each defendant concealed. In the wake of Xxxxx, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to as the “Xxxxx Progeny Progeny” cases. As of September 30December 12, 20132014, 1,961 806 Xxxxx Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,226 cases 3,194 of them were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 6,344 5,084 plaintiffs. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 17 16 additional Xxxxx Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred and four nineteen Xxxxx Progeny cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 20102011, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for late 2013 and early 20142015. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco’s right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable verdict and is to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. In Xxxxx Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the proper use of the preserved Xxxxx findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Xxxxx findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected that argument. In addition to this global due process argument, RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper member of the Xxxxx class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are preempted or barred by applicable statutes of limitation or statutes of repose, or that any injury was caused by the smoker’s own conduct.
Appears in 1 contract
Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; and the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, a class-class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. The Xxxxx findings do not indicate that all cigarettes sold by each defendant were defective and unreasonably dangerous, nor do they specify what acts of negligence each defendant committed, or what information each defendant concealed. In the wake of Xxxxx, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to as the “Xxxxx Progeny Progeny” cases. As of September 3017, 20132014, 1,961 947 Xxxxx Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,226 cases 3,124 of them were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 6,344 5,172 plaintiffs. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 17 16 additional Xxxxx Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred and four nine Xxxxx Progeny cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 20102011 through September 17, 2014, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for late 2013 and early 2014. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco’s right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable verdict and is to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered mediations.. In Xxxxx Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the proper use of the preserved Xxxxx findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Xxxxx findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected that argument. In addition to this global due process argument, RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper member of the Xxxxx class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation or statutes of repose, or that any injury was caused by the smoker’s own conduct. Twenty-four Xxxxx Progeny cases have become final through September 17, 2014. These cases resulted in aggregate payments by RJR Tobacco of $186.4 million ($140.1 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $46.3 million for attorneys’ fees and statutory interest). On October 3, 2014, a payment of $11.9 million ($10 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $1.9 million for attorneys’ fees and statutory interest) will be made in satisfaction of the adverse judgment in the Xxxxxxxx case, described below. The following chart reflects verdicts in all individual Xxxxx Progeny cases, pending as of September 17, 2014, in which a verdict has been returned against RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both, and has not been set aside on appeal. This chart does not include the mistrials or verdicts returned in favor of RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both. Plaintiff Case Name RJR Tobacco Allocation of Fault Compensatory Damages (as adjusted)(1) Punitive Damages Appeal Status
Appears in 1 contract
