Philip Morris' 'Militant Resistance' Revealed in Fee Fight Documents
A plaintiff's motion to compel in a row over attorney fees provides a rare behind-the-scenes glimpse at a tobacco defense in a case described as "extraordinary" by Broward Chief Judge Jack Tuter.
October 04, 2018 at 02:57 PM
5 minute read
The latest filing in a long-running case brought by a now deceased smoker provides a rare glimpse at the defense of tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris USA and hints at the “astonishing” nature of what's under seal in the case.
Philip Morris, owner of deceased plaintiff Cindy Naugle's preferred brand Benson & Hedges, has “engaged in what can only be described as 'militant resistance' and 'going to the mat' rather than 'yielding an inch' or 'paying a dime' to the Naugle family,” said the motion filed Oct. 2 by plaintiffs attorney Robert W. Kelley of Kelley Uustal in Fort Lauderdale.
According to Kelley's motion to compel, Philip Morris has tried to make smokers' lawsuits “as time-consuming, costly and burdensome as possible.” The case, described as a “saga” by the plaintiff and “extraordinary” by Broward Chief Circuit Judge Jack Tuter, was initially filed 11 years ago by Naugle, sister of former Fort Lauderdale mayor Jim Naugle.
Read the full motion:
|Cindy Naugle died in Nov 2013 at age 65, two weeks after winning an $11.65 million jury verdict against the tobacco manufacturer in what had already been a long-winded and contentious court battle.
Naugle's case was one of the first to stem from a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision to throw out Engle v. R.J. Reynolds, a giant class action against tobacco companies, which allowed plaintiffs to bring individual cases linking cigarettes to illnesses.
The win came despite the defense's “repeated attempts to secure a mistrial while Cindy Naugle lay on her hospital death bed,” according to the most recent motion.
In 2009, Naugle had been awarded a landmark $300 million verdict at trial, which was later reduced to $36.7 million, then reversed on appeal.
Related story: Plaintiffs Lawyer in Philip Morris Suit Explains $300 Million Verdict
Litigation ultimately went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resolved the case with a ruling ordering Philip Morris to pay $13.5 million.
One remaining issue is yet to be decided — attorney fees.
Kelley's motion to compel urged the defendant to comply with Judge Tuter's May 16 order that it share billing records with the plaintiff, allowing Tuter to compare the two and make a judgment on how much to award.
The document is one of two versions. An unsealed version was publicly filed, while another was filed “under seal” and includes additional information Philip Morris has asked remain confidential.
The plaintiff provided its billing records in August, but Philip Morris contested the “reasonableness” of the hours and rates suggested, despite the fact it hadn't yet shared its own billing records.
Mark J. Heise of Boies Schiller Flexner in Miami, who currently represents the defense, declined to comment on pending litigation.
Related story: Jury Foreman In Jim Naugle's Sister's Smoking Case Questioned
|
'This Honorable Court's jaw will drop'
“Literally, this Honorable Court's jaw will drop when it learns the actual number of lawyers PM used in this case,” the motion said.
On May 9, 2018, the parties discussed discovery matters at court over attorney fees after the defense had rejected a confidential offer by the plaintiff.
“I don't know what's going on with this one that's different to the others,” Tuter said at the May 9 evidentiary hearing, where he described the case as “extraordinary.”
Defense attorney Heise responded, explaining that “an eight figure demand was made” and claiming that the plaintiff was late submitting its billing records “because their contention is they want to have simultaneous disclosure of the fees.”
“Until and unless we contest their hours,” Heise argued, “Our fees are absolutely irrelevant.”
On Sept. 21, Kelley received what he called a ”jaw-dropping” and “astonishing” submission from Philip Morris, which according to the motion included no bills, invoices or billing records, but was rather a “summary of timekeeper's hours,” missing specifics.
Philip Morris has publicly claimed to have put a total of 22 lawyers on the case since its inception in Dec. 2007. But according to Kelley, the number of lawyers listed in the summary was “shocking.”
Naugle had offered to settle the case nine years ago for $150,000, but Philip Morris declined.
A hearing over the fee dispute is set to appear before Tuter at 10 a.m. on Oct. 11 at the Broward County Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHistoric Flooding, Power Outages and Debris From Hurricane Milton Forced Tampa Law Firms to Go Remote
3 minute readSullivan & Cromwell Dismissed as Defendant in Lawsuit from FTX Investors
Eleventh Circuit Rules for Moms for Liberty in Free Speech Case Against School Board
4 minute readEmployee's Alleged Action Lands Marriott in Court for Defamation, Negligence
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250