Cases > Representative
Missouri Light Cigarette Litigation: Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., No. 002-00406A (Mo. Cir. Ct. filed Feb. 14, 2000); Collora v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 002-00732 (Mo. Cir. Ct. filed Mar. 17, 2000); Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., No. 002-8526 (Mo. Cir. Ct. filed Nov. 29, 2000). Lead counsel: Stephen M. Tillery and Stephen A. Swedlow.
Plaintiffs filed these three cases in the Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis alleging that the tobacco company defendants marketed their cigarettes as "lights" or lower in tar than regular brands and that such representations were deceptive and in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Plaintiffs are seeking damages for themselves and others similarly situated for the tobacco company defendants' violations of the Act. Specifically, plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants falsely represented that "lights" delivered lower tar and nicotine but failed to disclose that "lights" contained ventilation holes that simply diluted the tar and nicotine per puff as measured by the industry standard testing apparatus; failed to disclose that defendants intentionally manipulated the design and content of "lights" in order to maximize nicotine delivery; failed to disclose that the defendants intended to fool the machine tests with these design changes; and failed to disclose that the design changes increased the harmful effects of tar.
Over the course of this litigation, the defendants have removed the cases to federal court multiple times, including after five years of heavily contested litigation in the circuit court. Stephen A. Swedlow argued the Plaintiffs' latest motions to remand in the federal district court, achieving an across the board victory for the plaintiffs as each of the cases was remanded to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis. See Craft v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 2006 WL 744415 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2006); Collora v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 428 F.Supp.2d 1018 (E.D. Mo. 2006); Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2006 WL 744414 (E.D. Mo. Mar.17, 2006).
Plaintiffs have successfully moved for class certification in both Craft and Collora. The defendants sought interlocutory appeal of the class certification order and Stephen A. Swedlow argued the case before the Missouri Court of Appeals. In a ground breaking opinion delineating the scope of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court's certification of a class of Missouri "lights" consumers. Craft v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 190 S.W.3d 368 (Mo. App. 2005). The Missouri Light Cigarette Litigation matters have been stayed pending the outcome of Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, which was decided in favor of the plaintiffs when the U.S. Supreme Court held that light cigarette claims based on state statutes, such as the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, are not preempted by federal law. The cases should be set for trial in the near future.
State of Nigeria v. Philip Morris International, et al. In 2007, Korein Tillery filed suit on behalf of the Nigerian Federal Government and several Nigerian state governments in a wide-scale litigation effort to recover health care costs from British American Tobacco and Philip Morris International for the treatment of tobacco-related illnesses and diseases. Cases are currently pending in federal court, as well as in Nigeria's largest and most populous states, including Lagos State, Kano State, Oyo State, and Gombe State courts.
Nigeria: Tobacco Companies Sued, New York Times, 8 Nov 2007
Rogers v. Tyson Foods Inc., No. 01-LM-1006 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Aug. 17, 20087). Lead Counsel John W. Hoffman. (Add'l counsel: Watson, Jimmerson, Martin, McKinney, Graffeo & Helms, P.C.; J. Dudley Butler, P.A.; Whatley Drake, L.L.C.; Parry Deering Futscher & Sparks, P.S.C.). In 2001, Korein Tillery filed suit against Tyson Foods, Inc., the largest poultry producer in the world, alleging it artificially inflated the weight of chicken sold to consumers through the infusion of water during processing. The suit involved a complex interplay between federal regulations and state consumer protection laws concerning issues of federal preemption. The Plaintiffs, represented by Korein Tillery and Mr. Hoffman, won an important victory in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the propriety of pursuing these claims in state court. Rogers v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 308 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2002). In August 2007, after years of contentious litigation, the trial court certified a plaintiffs' class of Illinois consumers. This is believed to be the first such case and class certification of this type in the nation.
Holiday Shores Sanitary District v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and Growmark, Inc., No. 04-L-710; Holiday Shores Sanitary District v. Drexel Chemical Co. and Growmark, Inc., No. 04-L-709; Holiday Shores Sanitary District v. Makhteshim-Agan of N. Am. Inc., and Growmark, Inc., No. 04-L-712; Holiday Shores Sanitary District v. United Agri Products, Inc. and Growmark, Inc., No. 04-L-711; Holiday Shores Sanitary District v. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, and Growmark, Inc., No. 04-L-713; Holiday Shores Sanitary District v. Sipcam Agro USA Inc. and Growmark, Inc., No 04-L-708. Lead Counsel: Stephen M. Tillery, Christine J. Moody and Stephen A. Swedlow. (Add'l Counsel: Scott Summy, Baron & Budd, P.C.). Korein Tillery represents a rural Illinois water supplier in six cases against the manufacturers of atrazine. Atrazine is an herbicide that breaks down into degradent chemicals that are unsafe for human consumption in any amount. Atrazine is considered so dangerous to humans that it is not allowed to be registered for use in the European Union. Approximately 1,200 public drinking water systems are currently contaminated with atrazine.
Holiday Shores Sanitary District seeks to represent a class of water suppliers that have atrazine contamination in their water supply at any level, including those levels which fall below the EPA's maximum contaminant level. The defendants in each of the six actions sought to dismiss the case in part because Plaintiffs seek damages for water contamination falling below EPA contamination guidelines. However, on July 5, 2008, the Illinois Circuit Court ruled that Plaintiffs could proceed with their claims and denied defendants' motions to dismiss. Stephen M. Tillery of Korein Tillery argued the motion on behalf of the plaintiffs. The cases are currently pending in the Third Judicial Circuit of Illinois. Click here to view EPA data on Atrazine from the Huffington Post.
In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Prac. Litig., 534 F.Supp.2d 1214 (D. Kan. 2008); Rushing v. Alon USA, Inc., C.A. No. 3:06-7621 MHP (N.D. Cal.); Galauski v. Amerada Hess Corp., No. 06-6005 GEB (D.N.J.); Telles v. ConocoPhillips Co., No. C 07-1305 SC (N.D. Cal.); Becker v. Marathon Petroleum, No. 07-136 (D. Del.). Co-Lead Counsel: George A. Zelcs, Korein Tillery (Add'l Co-Lead Counsel: Robert Horn, Horn, Aylward & Bandy, and Thomas Girardi, Girardi & Keese. Add'l Co-Counsel: Kellogg Huber; Susman Godfrey; Carlson, Calladine Peterson; Richardson Patrick; Simmons Cooper). The Motor Fuel multidistrict litigation aggregates 50 federal class actions brought on behalf of consumers in 29 states and territories to remedy the unlawful, industry-wide sales practice engaged in by motor fuel retailers in failing to disclose and compensate for thermal expansion of motor fuel in retail sales to consumers. As a result of retailers' failure to sell standardized, temperature-compensated gallons, the amount of fuel received by consumers in every gallon varies according to the temperature of the fuel. When consumers buy motor fuel that has a temperature in excess of 60 degrees Fahrenheit, they: (1) receive less fuel in every gallon than is contained in the industry-standard U.S. Petroleum Gallon; and (2) pay retailers more in fuel excise taxes that retailers are required to remit to taxing authorities. Plaintiffs estimate that this practice costs U.S. consumers in excess of three billion dollars every year.
After carefully researching the causes of action in virtually every state over a six-month period, Korein Tillery and its co-counsel filed the first Motor Fuel Temperature lawsuit in this country in the Northern District of California on December 13, 2006, asserting causes of action against 15 separate defendants under the consumer protection statutes of 10 states and the District of Columbia. Rushing v. Alon USA, Inc., C.A. No. 3:06-7621 MHP (N.D. Cal.). The following day, Korein Tillery and its co-counsel filed an action in the District of New Jersey against additional defendants. Galauski v. Amerada Hess Corp., No. 06-6005 GEB (D.N.J. filed Dec. 14, 2006; amended Mar. 2, 2007). Thereafter, numerous other federal class actions were filed throughout the United States.
On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the federal class actions to the District of Kansas, the Honorable Kathryn J. Vratil, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The district court appointed George Zelcs of Korein Tillery as one of three co-lead counsel in the MDL. In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 1840, Case No. 07-md-1840-KHV (D. Kan. Sep. 12, 2007).
In their consolidated complaint, Plaintiffs pursue breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy claims in addition to claims under the consumer protection laws of 29 states and territories. On October 22, 2007, Defendants moved to dismiss each of Plaintiffs' claims on numerous grounds, arguing, inter alia, that: (1) Defendants' sales practices were consistent with the manner in which motor fuel has been sold in the U. S. since the advent of the automobile; and (2) the regulatory framework of each state precluded Defendants from compensating for temperature variances in the retail sale of motor fuel. On February 21, 2008, the Court issued its 42-page Memorandum and Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to all counts. In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 534 F.Supp.2d 1214 (D. Kan. 2008).
Williams v. Rohm & Haas Pension Plan, 497 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2007). The Plaintiff Class, represented by Korein Tillery attorney Douglas R. Sprong, alleged that the Rohm and Haas Pension Plan violated ERISA by failing to include a cost-of-living adjustment in lump sum distributions from the Plan. The district court granted class certification and in October 2004 Korein Tillery obtained summary judgment in favor of the class. On August 14, 2007 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying the pension plan's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit agreed that the pension plan violated ERISA by failing to include the value of a cost-of-living adjustment in the class members' lump sum distributions. The Court remanded the case to the district court so that class members' lump sum benefits could be recalculated to include the value of the cost-of-living-adjustment. The Plan's Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied in May 2008. Click to view the Class Action Settlement Agreement or the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement Agreement.
UPDATE: On April 12, 2010, Judge Sarah Evans Barker entered an Order approving the Class Settlement. Click to view the Final Order Approving Class Settlement and Denying Pending Motions. Several class members have appealed the Judge’s decision; therefore, settlement benefits will not be disbursed in September, 2010. We do not expect to have additional information before the first quarter of 2011.