Waggoner v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
835 F. Supp. 2d 1244
M.D. Fla.2011Background
- Engle class action certified in 1994 against major cigarette makers and two tobacco-industry groups; Florida Supreme Court decertified class but held Phase I findings could have res judicata effect in progeny actions.
- Engle III (Florida Supreme Court) approved most Phase I findings but decertified Phase III, allowing individual damages actions with Phase I findings having preclusive effect.
- Phase II awarded $12.7 million in compensatory damages to three representatives and $145 billion in punitive damages to the class, later reversed in part; class decertification followed.
- Engle progeny actions (about 9,000 suits) filed within the savings period; Florida appellate decisions (Martin and Jimmie Lee Brown) addressed scope of preclusion, while Eleventh Circuit mandated Florida-law preclusion analysis.
- This federal court post-Erie must apply Florida preclusion law (Martin, Jimmie Lee Brown) unless due process requires otherwise, and must fashion jury instructions consistent with those rulings.
- The decision resolves whether Engle Phase I findings can be given preclusive effect in progeny cases without violating defendants’ due process rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Phase I findings as preclusive | Brown II: Phase I findings should preclude conduct elements for all progeny. | Martin/Jimmie Lee Brown: Florida law limits preclusion to established conduct elements; breadth may violate due process. | Phase I findings may preclude conduct elements consistent with Martin and Jimmie Lee Brown; scope to be determined through Florida-law preclusion analyses. |
| Due process viability of Florida preclusion | Engle progeny can rely on Phase I findings without re-litigation. | Preclusion must not violate right to due process by foreclosing issues actually undecided or broadening findings unduly. | Engle Phase I findings can be applied consistent with due process under Martin and Jimmie Lee Brown. |
| Erie/Full Faith and Credit impact | FL preclusion law should govern Engle progeny in federal court per 28 U.S.C. § 1738. | Erie requires applying state law and Florida decisions; potential constitutional concerns must be addressed. | Florida preclusion law (Martin, Jimmie Lee Brown) applies under Erie/1738 absent due-process violation. |
| Jury instructions for progeny trials | Use class-membership and causation structure consistent with Phase I findings; allow efficient proof. | Need precise causation instructions to reflect what Phase I actually decided; risk of improperly broad preclusion. | Adopted bifurcated or special verdict approach aligning with Martin/Jimmie Lee Brown to separate class membership from causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, Engle III, 945 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 2006) (Florida Supreme Court decision approving Phase I findings for res judicata effect in progeny actions)
- Bernice Brown II, 611 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2010) (establishes Florida preclusion scope under Bernice Brown II; issue preclusion framework)
- Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (Florida First DCA held Phase I findings establish conduct elements; progeny need not reprove those elements)
- Jimmie Lee Brown, 70 So.3d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (Florida Fourth DCA aligned with Martin on conduct-element preclusion; due process considerations discussed)