Class Actions -- 2017



Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.   (11th Circuit)

Defending due process rights in preclusion cases

The NAM filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit arguing that the lower court violated the defendant’s due process rights when it discarded the longstanding principle that preclusion is only acceptable when identical issues have been actually and necessarily decided. The lower court’s decision, which allowed the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed without requiring a showing that any specific theory or issue was decided, was at odds with the traditional test for issue and claim preclusion. That ruling had the potential to dramatically transform the law of preclusion and improperly increase the liability exposure of manufacturers by relieving plaintiffs of the burden of proving fundamental elements of their causes of action.

The NAM’s brief argued that the lower court’s decision eliminated due-process protections and businesses’ fundamental right to defend themselves when they are sued, and that it endangered American business because these rulings could authorize the use of any general verdict against defendants in mass-tort proceedings to foreclose litigation over basic liability issues as to all defendants and all products for the entire time they were on the market. The Eleventh Circuit unfortunately reimagined the lower court’s decision with an even more fundamental error and found each defendant liable as to every product during the entire forty-year period at issue and further held that this “finding” must be given issue preclusive effect.


Related Documents:
NAM brief  (April 22, 2016)