Judge Permits Most of L.A.’s Tobacco Suit

Anti-tobacco forces scored another significant victory Friday when a San Diego judge permitted most of Los Angeles County’s massive suit to recover hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars spent to treat smoking-related illnesses to go forward.

Superior Court Judge Robert E. May rejected the industry’s claim that Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky did not have standing to sue under the state’s unfair business practices statute.

He also rejected industry contentions that Los Angeles County did not have the right to sue for breach of express warranty. The suit alleges that the firms falsely pledged that their products were not addictive. But the judge did dismiss one fraud count.

May ordered the industry to file answers within 30 days to the county’s allegations that the industry engaged in unfair and unlawful business practices, business fraud and breach of express warranty.

“This is a great victory,” said Yaroslavsky, who spearheaded efforts to persuade his colleagues on the Board of Supervisors to file the suit last year. “We are the first local government in the United States to be given a green light to proceed against big tobacco.”

The case, filed in August in Los Angeles Superior Court, was moved to San Diego because of a statute that states it would be unfair for Los Angeles jurors to consider a lawsuit filed by their local government.

The suit alleges that through a fraudulent course of conduct spanning four decades, the cigarette companies and their trade associations have manufactured, distributed and sold tobacco products “for the purpose and intent of creating and sustaining addiction to a highly addictive drug known as nicotine.”

Attorneys Mark P. Robinson of Laguna Niguel and Brian Pannish of Santa Monica, who are serving as special outside counsel to the county, said that if Los Angeles prevails at trial, the major cigarette firms and their associations could not only be held responsible for reimbursing the county for medical expenses but also be required to disgorge profits and pay restitution.

In addition, the suit seeks to compel the defendants to “cease targeting minors in their advertising campaigns,” require the defendants to disclose the nicotine yields of their products and fund smoking cessation programs.

H. Joseph Escher, a lawyer for R.J. Reynolds, the nation’s second-largest cigarette company, sharply differed with Yaroslavsky and the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

“My view is the judge’s ruling [dismissing the common law fraud count] has crippled the case for the county of Los Angeles,” Escher said. He expressed confidence that the county would be unable to prevail on any of its other allegations.

Meanwhile, the tobacco industry suffered another noteworthy setback Friday when Judge Harold Cohen of West Palm Beach, Fla., upheld the ruling of a special master that eight highly sensitive internal Liggett Group documents be turned over to attorneys representing Florida in its massive suit against the industry, a case that is similar to Los Angeles’ and those filed by 22 other states.

Cohen, who supervises the special master, issued a five-day stay to give the defendants time to appeal.

On Friday, several sources disclosed that another settlement meeting would be held on Sunday.