Will the protracted litigation between tobacco manufactures and the State of California finally be coming to an end?


The State of California engaged in lengthy and protracted litigation with numerous tobacco manufacturers concerning their marketing activities and advertising in the State of California. In the Consolidated Tobacco Cases, the court of appeal rendered a decision concerning the award of attorney fees which may bring that litigation to its final conclusion.

In 1998, Reynolds Tobacco (“Reynolds”) and other tobacco manufacturers entered into a settlement agreement with the state, in an attempt to finally resolve claims related to the advertising of tobacco products.

The trial court approved the settlement and the parties entered into a stipulated consent decree. This too was entered as an order of the court. The decree permanently enjoined Reynolds from using cartoons in its marketing campaigns. Subsequently, the state moved to enforce the consent decree, alleging Reynolds violated the consent decree in a subsequent advertising campaign.

The court refused to grant the state’s request for an injunction however. The court concluded that Reynolds had discontinued the advertisement, and for that reason alone the requested injunction was not necessary. After further protracted litigation, the lower court awarded the state almost $3 million in contractual attorney fees under Civil Code Section 1717. The basis for the fee award was the court found that the state was a prevailing party in an action to enforce the consent decree. Reynolds appealed, arguing there was no basis for the award of attorney fees.

The court of appeal affirmed, referencing Civil Code Section 1717. Under that statute, the prevailing party in a contract containing a fee provision can be awarded fees. The prevailing party is the one “who received the greater relief in the action on the contract.” Reynolds argued that the state did not obtain the necessary relief because the trial court denied the state’s subsequent request for injunctive relief. The court noted, however, that the lack of injunctive relief did not automatically require the trial court to reject the fee petition.

The court of appeal concluded that, because the state’s main litigation objective was to stop the use of cartoons in advertising, and because it largely achieved that objective, it was a prevailing party. On that basis, the attorney fee award was affirmed by the court of appeal.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.