Xavier v. Philip Morris USA Inc.
74 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 390
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- This is a putative California class action in the ND Cal asking for medical monitoring for heavy Marlboro smokers; PM moves for judgment on the pleadings on claims 4 and 5 and for summary judgment on all remaining claims, while Xavier and Franklin move for class certification.
- Plaintiffs seek a court-supervised medical-monitoring program funded by PM, not damages, based on alleged design flaws in Marlboro cigarettes.
- Plaintiffs assert PM could have designed a safer cigarette delivering the same enjoyment with significantly less carcinogens, and allegedly conspired to suppress such designs.
- The complaint asserts six claims; the court previously dismissed the first and last, leaving four: UCL, CLRA, breach of warranty, strict/neg-l design claims, but later PM summary judgment narrows remaining claims to four and five.
- The court decouples causation standards for design-defect claims, applying a but-for standard with a concurrent-causes exception analysis, and addresses privity, CLRA reliance, and accrual rules.
- The court ultimately denies PM’s judgment on the pleadings, grants in part and denies in part PM’s summary judgment, and denies class certification for lack of ascertainability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What causation standard applies to design-defect claims? | Xavier argues substantial-factor standard applies; but-for governs due to concurrent causes not present. | Philip Morris argues but-for applies with no exception for concurrent causes. | But-for standard applies; exceptions not satisfied. |
| Are the design-defect and negligent design claims adequately pled? | Claims are plausibly tied to alleged safer-design feasibility and increased cancer risk. | Plaintiffs fail to show a non-negligible link or feasible alternative design would have reduced risk. | Plaintiffs adequately pled causation at the pleadings stage. |
| Does privity exist to support the breach-of-implied-warranty claim? | Exceptions to privity should apply to end-consumer buyers via third-party or other theories. | No privity or applicable exceptions exist under Clemens; claim must be dismissed. | Breach-of-implied-warranty claim is dismissed for lack of privity. |
| Is the CLRA claim viable given causation and reliance requirements? | Omissions or misrepresentations could render PM liable under CLRA. | No viable reliance shown; misrepresentation/omission theory not proven. | CLRA claim dismissed for lack of reliance. |
| Are the plaintiffs' claims time-barred by the statute of limitations? | Discovery rule extends accrual; plaintiffs did not know until counsel recruited them; continuing-tort issues apply. | Accrual occurred earlier; plaintiffs knew of risk long before filing. | Timeliness argument fails; discovery rule applied to alleged knowledge specific to increased risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal. 4th 953 (Cal. 1997) (establishes substantial-factor causation in product-liability)
- Mitchell v. Gonzales, 54 Cal.3d 1041 (Cal. 1991) (substantial-factor standard; but-for reliance on concurrent causes)
- Viner v. Sweet, 30 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 2003) (exceptions to but-for for concurrent independent causes)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) (privity requirement and exceptions in implied-warranty actions)
- Arnold v. Dow Chem. Co., 91 Cal.App.4th 698 (Cal. App. 2001) (inherently dangerous instrumentalities exception context)
- Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. App. 2006) (reliance and omissions under CLRA)
- Mass. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.4th 1282 (Cal. App. 2002) (reliance requirement for CLRA claims)
- O'Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 311 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2002) (discovery rule accrual in California law context)
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) (accrual and discovery rule framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine disputes of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden on moving party at summary judgment)