R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. County of San Diego

S.D. California

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. County of San Diego

DecidedMarch 4, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-01290

StatusUnknown

This text of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. County of San Diego (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. County of San Diego) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. County of San Diego, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO Case No.: 20-CV-1290 JLS (WVG) COMPANY.; R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR 12 COMPANY.; and SANTA FE ORDER (1) GRANTING 13 NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY., PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED INC., MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 14 SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, 15 AND (2) ORDERING v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 16

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and HELEN 17 N. ROBBINS-MEYER, in her official (ECF No. 37) 18 capacity as the County of San Diego’s Chief Administrative Officer, 19 Defendants. 20

21 22 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. 23 Reynolds Vapor Company, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.’s Unopposed 24 Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF No. 37). 25 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), “the court may, on just terms, 26 permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or 27 event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” The Rule “plainly 28 permits supplemental amendments to cover events happening after suit, and it follows, of 1 || course, that persons participating in these new events may be added if necessary.” Griffin 2 ||v. County School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 226-27 (1964). Permitting or denying leave to file 3 ||a supplemental pleading or claim is left to the sound discretion of the court. Keith v. Volpe, 4 || 858 F.2d 467, 475 (9th Cir. 1988). 5 Here, Plaintiffs seek leave to supplement their Complaint because on December 8, 6 2020, San Diego County adopted Ordinance No. 10699. Mot. at 1. When Ordinance No. 7 || 10699 becomes operative on July 1, 2021, it will repeal the current ban on “flavored 8 ||smoking products” in Ordinance No. 10647 and replace it with a ban on the sale of 9 || “flavored tobacco products.” Jd. Because of this development, Plaintiffs request leave to 10 || file a Supplemental Complaint, which adds claims that Ordinance No. 10699 is similarly 11 || preempted by federal law. Jd. Additionally, the Supplemental Complaint includes two 12 ||new Plaintiffs: American Snuff Co., LLC and Modoral Brands Inc. Jd. These companies 13 ||manufacture flavored tobacco products that were not covered by San Diego County’s 14 || original Ordinance but will be covered by the new Ordinance. Jd. Defendants do not 15 || oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion. Id. 16 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion. 17 || Plaintiffs may file their Supplemental Complaint. Additionally, the Parties SHALL FILE 18 simultaneous briefs within seven (7) days of the electronic docketing of this Order, not to 19 || exceed five (5) pages each, addressing how the Court should resolve the new claims in 20 || light of the pending motions in this action. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: March 4, 2021 . tt 23 pee Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO Case No.: 20-CV-1290 JLS (WVG) COMPANY.; R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR 12 COMPANY.; and SANTA FE ORDER (1) GRANTING 13 NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY., PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED INC., MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 14 SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, 15 AND (2) ORDERING v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 16

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and HELEN 17 N. ROBBINS-MEYER, in her official (ECF No. 37) 18 capacity as the County of San Diego’s Chief Administrative Officer, 19 Defendants. 20

21 22 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. 23 Reynolds Vapor Company, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.’s Unopposed 24 Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF No. 37). 25 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), “the court may, on just terms, 26 permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or 27 event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” The Rule “plainly 28 permits supplemental amendments to cover events happening after suit, and it follows, of 1 || course, that persons participating in these new events may be added if necessary.” Griffin 2 ||v. County School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 226-27 (1964). Permitting or denying leave to file 3 ||a supplemental pleading or claim is left to the sound discretion of the court. Keith v. Volpe, 4 || 858 F.2d 467, 475 (9th Cir. 1988). 5 Here, Plaintiffs seek leave to supplement their Complaint because on December 8, 6 2020, San Diego County adopted Ordinance No. 10699. Mot. at 1. When Ordinance No. 7 || 10699 becomes operative on July 1, 2021, it will repeal the current ban on “flavored 8 ||smoking products” in Ordinance No. 10647 and replace it with a ban on the sale of 9 || “flavored tobacco products.” Jd. Because of this development, Plaintiffs request leave to 10 || file a Supplemental Complaint, which adds claims that Ordinance No. 10699 is similarly 11 || preempted by federal law. Jd. Additionally, the Supplemental Complaint includes two 12 ||new Plaintiffs: American Snuff Co., LLC and Modoral Brands Inc. Jd. These companies 13 ||manufacture flavored tobacco products that were not covered by San Diego County’s 14 || original Ordinance but will be covered by the new Ordinance. Jd. Defendants do not 15 || oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion. Id. 16 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion. 17 || Plaintiffs may file their Supplemental Complaint. Additionally, the Parties SHALL FILE 18 simultaneous briefs within seven (7) days of the electronic docketing of this Order, not to 19 || exceed five (5) pages each, addressing how the Court should resolve the new claims in 20 || light of the pending motions in this action. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: March 4, 2021 . tt 23 pee Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. County of San Diego, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rj-reynolds-tobacco-company-v-county-of-san-diego-casd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack