Lorillard
Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot Tribe), Plaintiffs - Appellants V. Philip Morris, Incorporated, Defendants - Appellees. Defendants' Appellees Opposition Brief. Case No. : 00-15080
Fields
- Author
- Baker, F.D.
- Bellacosa, P.
- Escher, H.J. III
- Guthrie, S.L.
- Mclean, A.S.
- Nelson, J.S.
- Novak, C.L.
- Phillips, J.W.
- Sharland, D.E.
- Spangler, S.L.
- Strotz, C.
- Bellacosa, P.
- Area
- LEGAL DEPT FILE ROOM/CENTRAL FILES
- Type
- PLEA, PLEADING
- Recipient (Organization)
- US Court Appeals 9th Circuit
- Named Person
- Correa
- Hise
- Martinez
- Noerr
- Pennington
- Rhoades
- Snapp, A.L.
- Hise
- Named Organization
- 8th Northern Indian Pueblos Council of N
- 9th Circuit
- Amer, American Tobacco
- Apache Tribe of Ok
- Bat Industries
- Bat, British American Tobacco
- Bw, Brown & Williamson
- Ca
- Chelan Tribe
- Columbia Pictures
- Comanche Tribe
- Confederated Tribes of Colville
- Congress
- Dc
- De Tribe of Western Oh
- District Court
- Entiats Tribe
- Hoopa Valley Tribe
- Independent Hopi Village of Shungopavi
- Indian Health Service
- Kiowa Tribe of Ok
- La Jolla Tribe
- Lakes Tribe
- Loews
- Medicaid
- Methow Tribe
- Moses Columbia Tribe
- Navajo Indian
- Nespelem Tribe
- Nez Perce Tribe
- Nm
- Okanogan Tribe
- Palouse Tribe
- PM, Philip Morris
- Ponca Tribe
- Rincon Band of Mission Indians
- Rj Reynolds Tobacco Holdings
- RJR Nabisco
- RJR Nabisco Holdings
- RJR, R.J.Reynolds
- San Poil Tribe
- Supreme Court
- Table Bluff Reservation Wiyot Tribe
- Tx
- Union Farm Workers
- US
- US Government
- Usdc Nd Ca
- Wenatchee Tribe
- 9th Circuit
- Document File
- 98241398/98241522/Litigation Table Bluff V. Philip Morris, Et Al. Court Papers - Volume III
- 98241399/98241521/Litigation Table Bluff V. Philip Morris, Et Al. Court Papers - Volume II
- Date Loaded
- 10 Apr 2002
- Request
- R1-080
- Litigation
- Feda/Produced
- Characteristic
- EXTR, EXTRA
- Site
- N14
- Master ID
- 98241400/1520
Related Documents:- 98241400-1520 Index of Pleadings Case Name: Table Bluff Reservation ( Wiyot Tribe) V. Philip Morris, Et Al. (Ltc) Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Case Number: C99-02621
- 98241470 Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot Tribe), Plaintiffs-Appellants, V. Philip Morris Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees. On Appeal From the United States District Court of the Northern District of California, San Francisco Defendants-Appellees' Addendum. Case No.: 00-15080
- 98241471-1479 Forces Action Project Llc, Plaintiffs, V. State of California Defendants. Opinion: Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Denying Motion for Leave to Amend. No. C 99-0607 Mjj
- 98241481-1520 Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot Tribe), Plaintiffs - Appellants, V. Philip Morris, Inc., Defendants - Appellees. On Appeal From the Judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California San Francisco the Honorable Chief Judge Marilyn H. Patel Plaintiffs - Appellants Opening Brief. Case No. No.: 00-15080
- Author (Organization)
- Amer, American Tobacco
- Bat, British American Tobacco
- Bw, Brown & Williamson
- Heller Ehrman
- Howard Rice
- Kirkland Ellis
- Lor, Lorillard
- PM, Philip Morris
- RJR, R.J.Reynolds
- Sedgwick Detert
- Shb, Shook,Hardy & Bacon
- Bat, British American Tobacco
- UCSF Legacy ID
- udj53c00
Document Images
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .....................................................1
II. ISSUES ON APPEAL .......................................................................... 1
III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................. I
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................... 3
V. SUNIIvIARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................ 5
VI. ARGUMENT
........................................................................................ 6
A. The Tribes Do Not Present a "Case or Controversy................... 6
1. The Tribes Fail to Present a Case or Controversy
Regarding Alleged Interference with Tribal
Sovereignty ....................................................................... 7
2. The Tribes Fail to Present a Case or Controversy
Regarding Their Claimed Exclusion from the MSA
or Its Benef ts ................................................................. 12
a. "Exclusion" From The MSA ...............................12
b. "Exclusion" From The Benefits of the MSA...... 14
3. The Tribes Fail to Present a Case or Controversy
Regarding Post-MSA Product Price Increases ..............15
B. The Tribes Fail To State A Claim Upon Which Relief
C an B e Grant e d . ... ....... ........ ..................................... ................ 19
1. The Tribes Fail to State a Claim For Infringement
of Tribal Sovereignty . .................................................... 19
2. The Tribes Fail to State a Claim for Violation of
the Equal Protection Clause ........................................... 22
I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28-2.2, Defendants-Appellees agree with
Plaintiffs'-Appellants' Jurisdictional Statement.
II. ISSUES ON APPEAL
The Tribes' appeal raises the following issues:
1. Whether this Court should affirm the district court's holding that
Plaintiff-Appellant Tribes ("Tribes") failed to present a case or controversy with
respect to their challenge to Defendants' settlement of State Lawsuits over
smoking-related health care costs, a settlement (a) to which the Tribes were not
parties; (b) which preserved any claims the Tribes might have; (c) the benefits of
which are for all state citizens, including tribal members; and (d) which has no
conceivable impact on tribal contracts or regulations?
2. Whether this Court should affirm the district court on the additional
grounds that the Tribes failed to state any claim upon which relief can be granted,
and because the complaint is barred under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine?
III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Defendants-Appellees are tobacco manufacturers ("Defendants") who
entered into a Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA") with attorneys general from
52 jurisdictions to settle lawsuits over smoking-related health care costs. ER 1,
1
3. The Tribes Fail To State A Claim Under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981 ............................................................................. 24
C. The Complaint Also'Fails Under The Noerr-Pennington
Doctrine . ................................................................................... 27
VII. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................
29
-u-
H. Joseph Escher III
HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKIN
Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 434-1600
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
Frederick D. Baker
SEDGWICK DETERT MORAN & ARNOLD
One Embarcadero Center, 16th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3628
(415) 781-7900
Peter Bellacosa
KIRKLAND & ELLIS
153 East Fifty-Third Street
New York, NY 10022-4675
(212) 446-4800
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, individually and as
successor by merger to The American Tobacco Company
Shannon L. Spangler
Caroline Strotz
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
One Market Place
Steuart Street Tower, Ninth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 904-6300
Jeffrey S. Nelson
Christine L. Novak
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
One Kansas City Place
1200 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64 1 05-2 1 1 8
(816) 474-6550
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee
Lorillard Tobacco Company
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
Defendant-Appellee Philip Morris Incorporated has the following parent
corporation:
Philip Morris Companies Inc.
Philip Morris Companies Inc. is the only publicly held company
that owns 10% or more of Philip Morris Incorporated's stock.
Defendant-Appellee R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company has the following
parent corporation:
RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp.
RJR Nabisco, Inc.
RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp. is the only publicly held company that
owns 10% or more of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company's stock.
Defendant-Appellee Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation
(individually and as successor by merger to The American Tobacco Company) has
the following parent corporations:
British American Tobacco p.l.c.
British American Tobacco p.l.c. is the only publicly held company
that owns 10% or more of Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corporation's stock.
Defendant-Appellee Lorillard Tobacco Company has the following parent
corporations:
Lorillard, Inc.
Loews Corporation
Lorillard Tobacco Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Lorillard, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Loews
Corporation, which has outstanding securities in the hands of the
public.
Page
Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978)
..................................................23
Forces Action Project LLC v. State of California, No. C99-00607
MJJ, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2000) ................................27
Fraley v. United States Bureau of Prisons, I F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 1993) .................22
Gen-Probe, Inc. v. Amoco Corp., 926 F. Supp. 948
(S.D. Cal. 1996)
....................................................................................................
....27
General Bldg. Contractors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375 (1982) ...............26
Gila River Indian Community v. Waddell, 91 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 1996) ...............21
Greenwood Util. Comm'n v. Mississippi Power Co., 751 F.2d 1484
(5th Cir. 1985)
...............................................................................................
28,29
Heimbaugh v. City and County of San Francisco, 591 F. Supp. 15 73
(N.D. Calif. 1984)
...............................................................................................22
Hise v. Philip Morris Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (N.D. Okla. 1999),
affd, _ F.3d , 2000 WL 192892 (10th Cir.
Feb. 17, 2000) ...........................................................................
16,18,23,24,27,28
Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Nevins, 881 F.2d 657 (9th Cir. 1989) .................................19
In re Airport Car Rental Antitrust Litig., 693 F.2d 84 (9th Cir. 1982) ...................28
In re American Continental Corp., 102 F.3d 1524 (9th Cir. 1996),
rev'd on other grounds, Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998)
...................................................................3
In re Tobacco/Governmental Health Care Costs Litigation,
- F. Supp. 2d , 1999 WL 128675 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 1999} ...................3,16
iv
[T]he common element of the Settling States' released claims are for
reimbursement for Medicaid funds. Plaintiffs [the Tribes] cannot
bring such claims. Only the federal government can bring claims for
Indian Health Service expenditures because, unlike the Settling States
which incurred Medicaid expenditures, Plaintiffs have not incurred
Indian Health Service expenditures.
ER 49, at 8, Ins. 6-11 (emphasis added). Accordingly, any prospective health care
cost claims by the Tribes against Defendants would be extraordinarily ambitious
and would face more significant risks than the claims the Settling States agreed to
release in the MSA.
VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This appeal is a lackluster challenge to the district court's forcefulIy
reasoned dismissal of the Tribes' complaint. The district court held that the
complaint does not present a case or controversy over its facial challenge to the
MSA - a settlement between the Settling States and Defendants - and the
resulting increases in the prices for cigarettes. Although suggesting that the district
court erred, the Tribes fail to address the district court's trenchant logic; they fail to
cite new authorities; and they fail to alert this Court to the provisions of the MSA
that completely contradict the Tribes' conjectural theories of harm. Instead, the
Tribes' appeal offers empty rhetoric that fails to invigorate their complaint with
substance.
As the Tribes admitted to the district court: "The Master Settlement
Agreement is nothing more than a global settlement of consolidated state
5
0
Page
White Mountain Apache v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) ......................................21
Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959)
......................................................................11
STATUTES AND RULES
. Statutes
Page
25 U.S.C. § 13
....................................................................................................
......13
25 U.S.C. § 1601
....................................................................................................
...13
25 U.S.C. § 1602
....................................................................................................
..13
25 U.S.C. § 1621f
....................................................................................................
.14
25 U.S.C. § 1682
....................................................................................................
..13
42 U.S.C. § 1981
........................................................................................ 2,24,25,26
42 U.S.C. § 1983
.............................................................................................
3,19,22
42 U.S.C. § 1985
....................................................................................................
....3
42 U.S.C. § 2651(a)
..................................................................................................13
Rules
Ninth Circuit Local Rule 28-2.2
................................................................................1
v11
both constitutional and prudential standing requirements. Warth v. Seldin, 422
U.S. 490, 503 (1975). Conclusory allegations (e.g., "exclusion from the MSA")
are not enough. Id. (plaintiffs alleged "exclusion" in conclusory terms but made no
allegations supporting inference that they attempted to or could have participatedy
Merely alleging interference with a right (e.g., "the MSA interferes with tribal
sovereign interests") without identifying some threatened or actual interference and
consequent injury falls short of Article III's requirements. E.g., Western Mining
Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that, although
plaintiffs alleged that statute violated their constitutional rights, plaintiffs lacked
standing because the statute had not been, and there was no imminent threat that it
would be, applied to them).
The Tribes' conclusory allegations fail to meet these requirements. Their
claim that Defendants have violated the Tribes' rights are based on hypotheses that
are directly contradicted by the MSA. The district court accurately concluded that
the Tribes have suffered no injury in fact as a result of the MSA or the post-MSA
price increases.
1. The Tribes Fail to Present a Case or Controversy
Regarding Alleged Interference with Tribal Sovereignty.
The MSA requires Defendants to cease billboard advertising (ER 27, at 22,
7 See pp. 25-26 below, discussing the rigorous pleading standards applicable
(Footnote continued)
7
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas v. Trustees of Big Sandy
Indep. Sch. Dist., 817 F. Supp. 1319 (E.D. Tex. 1993), remanded
without opinion, 20 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 1994) .....................................................18
Ay~ed L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592 (1982) ............. 15, 17, 19
Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes v. State of Montana, 568 F. Supp. 269
(D. Mont. 1983)
............................................................................................ 17,18
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1997) ................11
Bowker v. Morton, 541 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1976) ..................................................12
Branch v. Tunnel, 14 F.3d 449 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 512 U.S. 1219
(1994)
....................................................................................................
................3
California v. Cabazon Band ofMission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) ..................21
Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc.,
944 F.2d 1525 (9th Cir. 1991)
............................................................................28
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Kleppe, 533 F.2d 668
(D.C. Cir. 1976)
..................................................................................................17
Correa-Martinez v. Arrillaga-Belendez, 903 F.2d 49 (1st Cir. 1990) ....................26
Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.,
365 U.S. 127 (1961)
............................................................................................27
Estate of Reynolds v. Martin, 985 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1983) ...................................25
Evers v. County of Custer, 745 F.2d 1196
(9th Cir. 1984)
....................................................................................................
.27
In
