R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a Supplemental Complaint to add claims challenging a new county ordinance and to add two new plaintiffs. The court granted the unopposed motion and ordered the parties to file simultaneous briefs addressing the new claims.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for supplemental pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), which allows for the addition of transactions or events occurring after the original pleading. The new ordinance was adopted after the initial complaint, and the addition of new plaintiffs with standing regarding the new ordinance is consistent with the rule's purpose. The motion was unopposed, and the court exercised its discretion appropriately. |
Ordering Parties to File Simultaneous Briefs“Additionally, the Parties SHALL FILE simultaneous briefs within seven (7) days of the electronic docketing of this Order, not to exceed five (5) pages each, addressing how the Court should resolve the new claims in light of the pending motions in this action.” | agree with court The court has broad discretion to manage the docket and set briefing schedules. Ordering simultaneous briefing is a standard procedural mechanism to ensure fairness and efficiency when new claims are added to a case with pending motions. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 15(d)), cites binding authority for the proposition that post-suit events can be supplemented, and notes the unopposed nature of the motion. The procedural order for briefing is standard.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO Case No.: 20-CV-1290 JLS (WVG) COMPANY.; R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR 12 COMPANY.; and SANTA FE ORDER (1) GRANTING 13 NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY., PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED INC., MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 14 SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, 15 AND (2) ORDERING v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 16 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and HELEN 17 N. ROBBINS-MEYER, in her official (ECF No. 37) 18 capacity as the County of San Diego’s Chief Administrative Officer, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. 23 Reynolds Vapor Company, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.’s Unopposed 24 Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF No. 37). 25 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), “the court may, on just terms, 26 permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or 27 event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” The Rule “plainly 28 permits supplemental amendments to cover events happening after suit, and it follows, of 1 || course, that persons participating in these new events may be added if necessary.” Griffin 2 ||v. County School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 226-27 (1964). Permitting or denying leave to file 3 ||a supplemental pleading or claim is left to the sound discretion of the court. Keith v. Volpe, 4 || 858 F.2d 467, 475 (9th Cir. 1988). 5 Here, Plaintiffs seek leave to supplement their Complaint because on December 8, 6 2020, San Diego County adopted Ordinance No. 10699. Mot. at 1. When Ordinance No. 7 || 10699 becomes operative on July 1, 2021, it will repeal the current ban on “flavored 8 ||smoking products” in Ordinance No. 10647 and replace it with a ban on the sale of 9 || “flavored tobacco products.” Jd. Because of this development, Plaintiffs request leave to 10 || file a Supplemental Complaint, which adds claims that Ordinance No. 10699 is similarly 11 || preempted by federal law. Jd. Additionally, the Supplemental Complaint includes two 12 ||new Plaintiffs: American Snuff Co., LLC and Modoral Brands Inc. Jd. These companies 13 ||manufacture flavored tobacco products that were not covered by San Diego County’s 14 || original Ordinance but will be covered by the new Ordinance. Jd. Defendants do not 15 || oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion. Id. 16 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion. 17 || Plaintiffs may file their Supplemental Complaint. Additionally, the Parties SHALL FILE 18 simultaneous briefs within seven (7) days of the electronic docketing of this Order, not to 19 || exceed five (5) pages each, addressing how the Court should resolve the new claims in 20 || light of the pending motions in this action. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: March 4, 2021 . tt 23 pee Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 25 26 27 28