Opinion
Nos. 00-CV-5332, 98-CV-0675, 98-CV-1492, 98-CV-3287, 99-CV-1988, 99-CV-6142, 00-CV-2340, 00-CV-4442, 00-CV-4632, 02-CV-0599
June 13, 2002
Perry Weitz, Robert J. Gordon, Jerry Kristal, Richard L. Akel, Esq. Weitz Luxenberg, New York, NY., Steven E. Fineman, Esq., Thomas M. Sobol, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, Bernstein, New York, NY., Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Richard M. Heimann, Robert J. Nelson, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, Bernstein, San Francisco, CA., Norwood Wilner, Sporwood Wilner Maciejewski Matthews, P.A., Jacksonville, Florida, Stanley Chesley, Esq., Wait, Chesley, Waite Schneider, Bayless Chesley, Cincinnati, Ohio, Gregory T. Carnold, Esq., Wayne F. Dennison, Esq., Brown Rudnick Freed Gesmer, Boston, Mass., Charles Mangan, Esq., Sheller Ludwig Badley, Philadelphia, PA. For Plaintiff in Simon I Simon II.
Joshua Kassner, John Angelos, Esq., Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C., Baltimore, MD., For Plaintiff National Asbestos.
Melvyn I. Weiss, Esq., Beth A. Kaswan, Esq., Michael C. Spencer, Esq., Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes Lerach, New York, NY., For Plaintiff Bergeron.
Paul J. Bschorr, Esq., Vincent R. FitzPatrick, Jr., Esq., Michael Hefter, Esq., Heather K. McDevitt, Esq., Dewey Ballantine LLP, New York, NY., Martha J. Talley, Esq., Dewey Ballantine LLP, Washington, DC., For Plaintiffs Blue Cross, et al.
Jonathon W. Cuneo, The Cuneo Law Group, Washington, D.C., Mark B. Hutton, Derek S. Casey, Chan P. Townsley Hutton Hutton, Wichita, KS., Gary Richardson, Richardson Ward, Tulsa, OK. For Plaintiff Mason, et al.
Peter A. Bicks, James L. Stengel, Orrick, Herrington Sutcliffe, LLP New York, NY., Thomas R. McNaboe, Thompson, McNaboe, Ashley Bull, LLC, P.A., Portland, MA., Steven Kazan, Kazan, McClain, Edises, Simon Abrams, Oakland, CA., For Plaintiff Raymark
Kevin J. Dunne, Esq., Eric M. Kraus, Esq., Sedgwick, Detert, Moran Arnold, Esq., New York, NY., Marjorie P. Lindblom, Esq., David Bernick, Esq., Andrew R. McGaan, Esq., Deirdre A. Fox, Esq., Kirkland Ellis, Esqs., New York, NY., U. Gwyn Williams, Esq., Goodwin, Proctor Hoar, LLP, Boston, MA., For Defendant Brown Williamson.
Harold Keith Gordon, Byron G. Stier, George Kostolampros, Jones, Day, Reavis Pogue, New York, NY., Theodore M. Grossman, Hugh R. Witing, Mark A. Belasic, Jones, Day, Reavis Pogue, Cleveland, OH. Robert H. Klonoff, Jones, Day, Reavis Pogue, Washington, D.C. Jerome R. Doak, Margaret I.. Lyle, Jones, Day, Reavis Pogue, Dallas, TX Ursula M. Henninger, Esq., Womble Carlyle Sandridge Rice, Winston-Salem, NC. For Defendant R. J. Reynolds.
Alan Mansfield, Esq., Robert J. Kirshenberg, Esq., Stephen L. Saxl, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY., William L. Allinder, Esq., Lori Connors McGroder, Esq. Shook, Hardy Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, MO., For Defendant Lorillard Tobacco.
Michael V. Comgan, Joseph M. McLauglin, Ronald M. Neuman, Adam I. Stein, Esq., Simpson Thacher Bartlett, New York, NY. For Defendant BAT Industries, p.l.c.
Donald J. Strauber, David A. Wallace, Daniel Endick, Chadbourne Parke, LLP, New York, NY., Defendant BATCO.
Peter Bleakley, Esq., Murray R. Garnick, Esq., David S. Eggert, Eric Suter Arnold Porter, Washington, DC. Peter L. Critchell, Esq., Dechert Price Rhoads, New York, NY., John B. Williams, Esq., Thomas W. Mitchell, Esq., Collier, Shannon, Rill Scott, Washington, DC. Kenneth J. Parsigian, Esq., Paul F. Namser, Esq., Goodwin, Proctor Hoar, Boston, MA., For Defendant Philip Morris.
Anne E. Cohen, Esq., Harry Zirlin, Esq., Steven S. Michaels, Esq., Debevoise Plimpton, Esqs., New York, NY., For Defendant Council for Tobacco Research USA, Inc.
Bruce J. Ginsberg, Esq., Davis Gilbert LLP, New York, NY., For Defendant Hill Knowlton.
Jacob Horowitz, Esq., Seward Kissel LLP, New York, NY., For Defendant Tobacco Institute.
Bryan A. McKenna, Esq., Jacob Medinger Finnegan, New York, NY., For Defendant Smokeless Tobacco.
Arthur H. Aizley, Esq., Eric S. Sarner, Esq. Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom, New York, NY., For Defendant U.S. Tobacco.
Leonard A. Feiwus, Esq., Kasowtiz Benson Torres Friedman, New York, NY., For Defendant Liggett.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON BLUE CROSS APPLICATION
Blue Cross Plaintiffs have expressed their desire to delay further action on their cases until the court of appeals for the Second Circuit issues its decision in the Blue Cross appeal. See Blue Cross Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law on Future Proceedings in the Case at 1 (June 6, 2002). They apparently assume that the court of appeals' decision will decide the viability of their claims under section 349 of the General Business Law and allow them to avoid unnecessary expense in trials that cannot succeed on the law.
The court agrees that the question of the validity of their section 349 claims ought to be resolved as promptly as possible. Merely awaiting the decision of the court of appeals may not accomplish this result.
As the parties are aware, the Blue Cross judgments and memoranda now on appeal are lengthy and contains numerous legal and factual conclusions. There is a possibility that the court of appeals may decide the case in a way that will not address, on the merits, whether section 349 is an appropriate claim. For example, the appellate court could base its decision on: the statistical models used by experts reflecting the damages suffered by the plaintiffs; the evidence connecting the damage to the alleged fraud regarding low tar cigarettes; the use of statistical evidence; the defendants' constitutional right to due process and trial by jury; standing to sue under 349; preemption; and defendants' claim that plaintiffs are required to prove the factual circumstances for each smoker on whose behalf they are suing. In addition, the court is likely to want to address the conflicts issue as to some of the non-New York Blue Cross plaintiffs—a question not directly raised in the present Blue Cross appeal.
A decision in the present Blue Cross appeal might well leave the parties without assurance that the other Blue Cross cases can proceed on a section 349 or other theory. The result of such uncertainty might burden the court and the parties with additional months or years of fruitless litigation.
The possibility of such an unfortunate lack of resolution can be reduced if the section 349 and other questions are placed directly before the court of appeals now. The court partially lifted the stay in the Blue Cross cases in order to allow the parties to submit motions to dismiss or other dispositive motions. See Transcript of May 1, 2002 at 12. This court is prepared to endorse an interlocutory appeal to the court of appeals.