FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 27, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 45 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 9- cv -0 02 55 -WT H-TBS

JAM ES RUSSELL, etc ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff , SHANNON RUSSELL, as daug ht er an d p ers on al rep res en ta ti ve of th e es ta te of h er m ot he r, Ro se AnnEato n, de ceas ed , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us PHILLIP MOR RIS USA, INC., a fo rei gn co rp or at io n, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el le e.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 27 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, W ILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Sh an no n R

us se ll , as re pr es en ta ti ve of R os e Ann e Eat on ’s est at e, se ek s t o ap pl y th e fi nd in gs in Eng le v. Lig ge tt Gro up , Inc
. , 94 5 S o. 2 d 1 24 6 (F la . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m), to pro ve th atMarl bo ro cig aret te s wer e d efec ti ve ly des ig ne d. Ph il li p

1 Mo rri s USA, In c., th e m anuf actur er o f Mar lb or o c ig aret te s, ar gu es th atRu ss el l can no t re ly on Eng le be cau se Eato n i s n ota m em be r of th e Eng le cla ss an d t ha t un de r Fl or id a la w col la te ral est op pe l ca nn otbe ap pl ie d i n t hi s ca se . After rev ie win g t he bri efs an d t he cas e la w, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n favo r of Ph il li p M orris . Ru ss el l fi le d awron gf

ul de ath a ct io n o n b eh al f of he r m ot he r al le gi ng th at he r m ot he r di edof l un g c an cer c au se d b y a li fet im e o f sm ok in g M arl bo ro

In Englethe Florida Supreme Court de cer tified the cla ss, but permitted members of the 1 Engleclass to re ly

on the jury ’s “Phase Icommon core finding s.” Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc
. , 945 So. 2d 1246, 1269 (Fla. 2006) . The Court also close d the class of plaintiffs elig ible to rely on the Engl e finding s in order to e nsure that the c lass was not open e nded. Id. at 1255. 2ci ga ret te s. Eat on ’s lu ng can cer was no t d ia gn os edun ti l 2 00 6. Ru ss el l ad m it te d t o

th e d is tri ctco urt tha t s he co ul d n otpro ve he r cl ai m s wi th ou t re lying on Eng le . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g al l ev id en ce an d drawi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es infav orof the no n- m ov in g pa rty. Owen v. I.C. Sys., In c. , 62 9 F .3d12 63 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Summary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te wher e “ th ere i s n o g enui ne is su e as to an y m at eri al fact an d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (a). W e g iv e p recl us iv e eff

ectto st at e co urt ju dg m en ts when two co nd it io ns are m et : “ (1 ) th e co urts of t he st at e fro m whi chth e jud gm en t em erg edwou lddo so th em se lv es ; an d (2 ) th e li ti ga nt s h ada fu ll an d fa ir o pp ortu ni ty to l it ig at e th ei r cl ai m s an d t he pri orst at e p ro ceed in gs ot he rwis e sa ti sf ie d the ap pl ic ab le requi rem en ts of due pro ces s.” Qui nn v. Mon ro e Cn ty , 33 0 F .3d13 20 , 13 29 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 ). Flo rid a la w requi res m utua li ty of pa rit ie s i n o rd er t o app ly col la te ral es to pp el . E.C. v. Kat

z , 73 1 S o. 2 d 1 26 8, 1 26 9 (F la . 19 99 ) (p er cu ria m). “ [U]nle ss bo th pa rti es are b ou ndby the pri orjud gm en t, n ei th er m ay us e itina subs eque nt act io n.” Id
. (qu ot in g St ogni ew v. McQu een , 65 6 S o. 2 d 9 17 , 91 9 (F la . 19 95 )). Eato n i s n ota m em

be r of th e Eng le cla ss an d c an no t n ow s eekto joi n i t be cau se th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t the cut-o ff d at e fo r in cl us io n was Nov em be r 21 , 19 96 . Eng le , 94 5 S o. 2 d a t 1 25 5. Thus , Eato n was no t a p arty to 3th e Eng le cas e an d c an no t n ow re ly on t he fin di ng s i n t ha t ca se un de r Fl or id a la w.

Se e R.J. Reyn olds To ba cco Co . v. Bro wn , 70 So . 3d70 7, 7 15 (Fl a. App . 20 11 ) (fi nd in g t ha t p la in ti ffs m

us t p ro ve th atth ey

are a m em

be r of th e Eng le cla ss ). Bec au se Ru ss el l co nc ed edth atsh e co ul d n otpro ve he r cl ai m witho ut Eng le an d sh e is ba rredfro m

rel y in g o n Eng le , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n favo r of Ph il li p M orris . AFFIRMED.

4