Procedural Posture

Defendants, the tobacco companies and their agents, filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings in plaintiff smoker’s action for common-law product liability and violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200-17210, and False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500-17595. Appellant was represented by a business attorney.

Overview

One year after she was diagnosed with lung cancer, the smoker filed an action alleging that the tobacco companies and agents manipulated nicotine levels in cigarettes and intentionally targeted minors in a marketing campaign that concealed the addictive nature and hazards of smoking. The tobacco companies and agents filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the UCL, FAL, and product liability claims. The court dismissed the complaint as time-barred because the smoker explicitly claimed that her lung cancer was a direct and proximate result of actions that induced her to become addicted to cigarettes. The court held that the smoker was charged with constructive knowledge of her addiction based on what she reasonably should have known of her addiction. The court held that a reasonable person who smoked for 44 years would have recognized that she was unable to stop and, thus, was addicted and at a serious risk of contracting health problems more than a year before she filed the complaint for smoking-related injuries. The court held that the lung cancer was not a separate injury with a separate statute of limitations.

Outcome

The court granted the motion.

Procedural Posture

Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the California Safe Drinking Water & Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986; and the California Unfair Business Competition Act.

Overview

Plaintiff non-profit corporation filed suit against defendant petroleum distributor alleging violations of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 6901 et seq; the California Safe Drinking Water & Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop 65), Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.5 et seq; and the California Unfair Business Competition Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim alleging that plaintiff failed to comply with the notice provisions of RCRA and Prop 65, and because the action was preempted by ongoing state prosecutions of defendant, and also that plaintiff failed to plead the factual basis for its claims. The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss as to all claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. Plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 6972(a)(1)(A) was preempted by the state action. Plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 6972(a)(1)(B) was deficient in that it did failed to describe which of defendant’s sites were at issue and plaintiff did not comply with the waiting period mandated by law.

Outcome

Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted. Actions against defendant by the state barred one of plaintiff’s federal environmental claims and plaintiff’s notice in the remaining federal claim was deficient in that it did failed to describe which of defendant’s sites were at issue and plaintiff did not comply with the waiting period mandated by law. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.