Tillman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco

Eleventh Circuit

Tillman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco

340 F.3d 1277, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16408, 2003 WL 21894270

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedAugust 11, 2003

Docket00-10963

StatusPublished

Cited by59 cases

This text of 340 F.3d 1277 (Tillman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tillman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16408, 2003 WL 21894270 (11th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On June 13, 2001, we issued an opinion in this case in which, inter alia, we asked the Alabama Supreme Court to answer a certified question regarding the interpretation of Alabama law concerning the liability of retailers who sell cigarettes. See Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 253 F.3d 1302, 1307-08 (11th Cir.2001). Federal jurisdiction of this case turns on the answer to our certified question because, as we stated, “If the complaint states a cause of action against retailers, there is no federal jurisdiction based on diversity.” Id. at 1307. The question is as follows:

WHETHER THERE IS ANY POTENTIAL CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER ANY THEORY AGAINST ANY RETAIL DEFENDANTS INCLUDING THOSE THAT EMPLOY PHARMACISTS WHO SELL CIGARETTES FOR CLAIMS BROUGHT UNDER THE ALABAMA EXTENDED MANUFACTURER’S LIABILITY DOCTRINE, OR PREMISED ON NEGLIGENCE, WANTONNESS, OR CIVIL CONSPIRACY UNDER ALABAMA LAW.

In its response, the Alabama Supreme Court answered our certified question in the affirmative as to the claims against retail defendants premised on negligence and wantonness, rejecting the retail defendants’ argument that Tillman’s negligence and wantonness claims merge into her Alabama Extended Manufacture’s Liability Doctrine statutory claims. See Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., — So.2d-,-, 2003 WL 21489707, No. *1279 1001644, slip op. at 14-15 (Ala. June 30, 2003). With potential state law claims against the three Alabama retail defendants, the district court erroneously asserted federal jurisdiction on the ground that they had been fraudulently joined.

As we explained in our June 13, 2001 opinion, if there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against any of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to the state court. Tillman, 253 F.3d at 1305.

We deny Reynolds’ motion for leave to file a supplemental brief addressing the Alabama Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spain v. Brown, & Williamson Tobacco Corp., -So.2d-, 2003 WL 21489727, No. 1000143 (Ala. June 30, 2003), which relates to the merits of the claims asserted against the manufacturers, over which the federal court has no jurisdiction because of the absence of the requisite complete diversity.

We vacate and remand to the district court with instructions to remand the case to the state court.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND TO STATE COURT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

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

PER CURIAM:

On June 13, 2001, we issued an opinion in this case in which, inter alia, we asked the Alabama Supreme Court to answer a certified question regarding the interpretation of Alabama law concerning the liability of retailers who sell cigarettes. See Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 253 F.3d 1302, 1307-08 (11th Cir.2001). Federal jurisdiction of this case turns on the answer to our certified question because, as we stated, “If the complaint states a cause of action against retailers, there is no federal jurisdiction based on diversity.” Id. at 1307. The question is as follows:

WHETHER THERE IS ANY POTENTIAL CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER ANY THEORY AGAINST ANY RETAIL DEFENDANTS INCLUDING THOSE THAT EMPLOY PHARMACISTS WHO SELL CIGARETTES FOR CLAIMS BROUGHT UNDER THE ALABAMA EXTENDED MANUFACTURER’S LIABILITY DOCTRINE, OR PREMISED ON NEGLIGENCE, WANTONNESS, OR CIVIL CONSPIRACY UNDER ALABAMA LAW.

In its response, the Alabama Supreme Court answered our certified question in the affirmative as to the claims against retail defendants premised on negligence and wantonness, rejecting the retail defendants’ argument that Tillman’s negligence and wantonness claims merge into her Alabama Extended Manufacture’s Liability Doctrine statutory claims. See Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., — So.2d-,-, 2003 WL 21489707, No. *1279 1001644, slip op. at 14-15 (Ala. June 30, 2003). With potential state law claims against the three Alabama retail defendants, the district court erroneously asserted federal jurisdiction on the ground that they had been fraudulently joined.

As we explained in our June 13, 2001 opinion, if there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against any of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to the state court. Tillman, 253 F.3d at 1305.

We deny Reynolds’ motion for leave to file a supplemental brief addressing the Alabama Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spain v. Brown, & Williamson Tobacco Corp., -So.2d-, 2003 WL 21489727, No. 1000143 (Ala. June 30, 2003), which relates to the merits of the claims asserted against the manufacturers, over which the federal court has no jurisdiction because of the absence of the requisite complete diversity.

We vacate and remand to the district court with instructions to remand the case to the state court.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND TO STATE COURT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 F.3d 1277, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16408, 2003 WL 21894270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillman-v-r-j-reynolds-tobacco-ca11-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack