Opinion ID: 1801796
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Seventh Amended Complaint

Text: The seventh amended complaint was filed in January 2001. In it, plaintiff Willard Brown, acting individually, on behalf of the General Public of the State of California, as well as on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, sued the American Tobacco Company, Philip Morris USA Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, British American Tobacco Co., Ltd., Liggett & Myers, Inc., Hill and Knowlton, Inc., the Council for Tobacco Research-U.S.A., Inc., the Tobacco Institute, Inc., United States Tobacco Company, and Lorillard Tobacco Company, alleging causes of action for unfair competition under the UCL; false and misleading advertisement under the false advertising law (§ 17500 et seq.); violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) (CLRA); breach of express warranty; fraud and intentional misrepresentation; breach of undertaking of special duty; negligence; and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The prefatory allegations stated: Through a fraudulent course of conduct that has spanned decades, Defendants have manufactured, promoted, distributed or sold tobacco products to Plaintiff and thousands of California citizens and residents, knowing, but denying and concealing that Defendants' tobacco products contain a highly addictive drug known as nicotine. Unbeknownst to the public, Defendants have intentionally controlled and manipulated the amount and bio-availability of nicotine in their tobacco products to create and sustain addiction to their products. [2] Class action allegations were stated with respect to the causes of action under the UCL, false advertising law and CLRA, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382. The complaint alleged that the predominance of common questions supported class action certification. These common legal and factual questions arise from two central issues, which do not vary among Class Members: (1) Defendants' common course of conduct in manufacturing, promoting, distributing and selling cigarettes; and (2) the biochemical and psychoactive properties of nicotine. Included among the specific allegations of commonality was Whether Defendants conspired to misrepresent, have repeatedly misrepresented, and continue to misrepresent to Plaintiffs and Class Members that smoking does not cause diseases, including, but not limited to, lung disease, heart disease, various cancers and other diseases. Following the class action allegations was a lengthy section captioned FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS, which set forth in specific detail the alleged concealment by the tobacco industry of the relationship between its product and various diseases. Pertinently, the complaint alleged that defendants had engaged in a public disinformation strategy . . . concerning the health effects of cigarette smoking, beginning in the 1960's with magazine articles that questioned the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. It was further alleged that [o]ther public statements by the Defendants over the years have repeated the misrepresentations that Defendants were dedicated to the pursuit and dissemination of the scientific truth regarding smoking and health. The UCL claim was alleged as the first cause of action: The acts complained of in each of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and each of them, constitute unfair and/or unlawful acts in competition in violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. Such acts and violations have not abated and will continue to occur unless enjoined. [3]