Tobacco.org

• TELEPHONIC RULING: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR RESOLUTION OF LEGAL ISSUES UNDER CRC 1541, BASED ON FEDERAL PREEMPTION UNDER 15 U.S.C. SECTION 1334(b) 

A. Mangini's holding was based on Cipollone, which supports Defendants' rather than Plaintiffs' position, and mandates the dismissal of the instant action as preempted under 15 U.S.C. 1334(b). . .

For purposes of this case, which seeks broad injunctive relief akin to negative prohibitions on tobacco advertisement, and this motion for summary judgment, Mangini and Cipollone do make one thing clear: that Plaintiffs' section 17200 claim under the deceptive and misleading prongs and Plaintiffs' section 17500 claim are preempted insofar as they are based on the same or a similar fraud theory examined in Cipollone (namely that of negating or rendering ineffective the federally mandated warnings on cigarette packages or, as stated in this case, that of "try[ing] to neutralize information reaching children from teachers, parents and public health officials concerning the health risks of smoking" (see Plaintiffs' Opposition Memorandum at 1:27-1:2), as the Courts in Cipollone and Mangini found these claims to be preempted. Mangini, 7 Cal.4th at 1067 (discussing Cipollone). Moreover, the reasoning behind the Court's decision in Cipollone is very applicable here, as any contrary ruling in this action would lead to the imposition of an impermissible prohibition that would constitute "the converse of a state-law requirement that warnings be included in advertising and promotions materials." . .

III. CONCLUSION

As a result, and for all the foregoing reasons, this Court must dismiss Plaintiffs' case, as Plaintiffs' UCL claims are either preempted under 15 U.S.C. sections 1334(a) or 1334(b) or based on inadmissible evidence under Civil Code section 47(b) or Civil Code section 1714.45.

Jump to full article »