Opinion ID: 2065552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Foreign Governments' Claims of Error and The Issues Presented on Appeal

Text: On appeal, the Foreign Governments claim that the Superior Court erred as a matter of law by holding that they had failed to allege proximate cause and to establish their standing to sue as parens patriae. More specifically, the Foreign Governments contend that the trial court applied an incorrect proximate cause analysis because it: (i) treated the Foreign Governments solely as healthcare providers without considering their role as sovereigns; (ii) ignored the principle that an act or omission is a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury or damages if the injury or damages were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the act or omission, as was the case here; and (iii) overlooked the fact that proximate cause is a doctrine of public policy, not an inflexible rule. According to the Foreign Governments, the correct analysis that the Superior Court failed to employ is to inquire whether justice demands, and will permit, the Superior Court to fashion a remedy to compensate the [Foreign Governments] for the harm they suffered as a result of the [Tobacco Company Defendants'] wrongdoing here. [8] Under that analysis, the Foreign Governments contend, this Court should hold that the pleaded facts establish proximate cause, given the intent of the wrongdoers, the undisputed nature of the damage, and the age old equitable principle that no wrong will be suffered without a remedy[.] [9] The Foreign Governments further claim that the Superior Court erroneously denied them parens patriae standing. Specifically, they argue that there is no logical basis to accord parens patriae standing to States, yet not to foreign governments. Therefore, the cases that distinguish between States and foreign governments were wrongly decided, and the Superior Court erred in relying on them. Second, the Foreign Governments point to federal court decisions allowing foreign sovereigns to claim parens patriae standing to the same extent as an American State, in cases where the foreign sovereign can articulate an interest apart from the interests of a specific private individual. [10] Arguing that their complaints adequately allege government healthcare and financial interests separate and apart from the interests of their private citizens, the Foreign Governments urge that by ignoring those decisions, the Superior Court improperly denied them parens patriae standing on this basis as well. The Foreign Government's claims raise two issues on this appeal. The first is whether the Superior Court erred in holding that the Foreign Governments' complaints failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The second is whether the Superior Court erroneously concluded that the Foreign Governments lacked standing to assert their claims as parens patriae. On review of a dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the inquiry is whether it appears with reasonable certainty that the plaintiff cannot prevail on any set of facts that may be inferred from the complaint's well-pleaded allegations. [11] All parties agree that the two issues presented here raise questions of law that this Court reviews de novo. [12] To promote clarity, we address these issues in reverse order.