Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 881 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`GREGORY P. STONE (SBN 78329)
`gregory.stone@mto.com
`DANIEL B. LEVIN (SBN 226044)
`daniel.levin@mto.com
`BETHANY W. KRISTOVICH (SBN 241891)
`bethany.kristovich@mto.com
`JOHN M. GILDERSLEEVE (SBN 284618)
`john.gildersleeve@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
`Telephone: (213) 683-9100
`Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
`
`RENEE D. SMITH (pro hac vice)
`renee.smith@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: (312) 862-2000
`Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
`
`PETER A. FARRELL, P.C. (pro hac vice)
`peter.farrell@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Juul Labs, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING,
`SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
`LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`
`
`This Document Relates to:
`
`(1) Tucson Unified School District v. JUUL
`Labs, Inc.,et al.; (2) County of Santa Cruz,
`Individually And on Behalf of The People of
`The State of California v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et
`al.; (3) The Livermore Valley Joint Unified
`School District v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al.; (4)
`The School Board of Broward County, Florida
`v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al.; (5) The School
`
` Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`
`Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion
`to Dismiss Bellwether Government Entity
`Complaints
`
`Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick
`Date:
`September 21, 2020
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`Ctrm.:
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`
`Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Bellwether Government Entity Complaints
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 881 Filed 08/17/20 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`Board of Escambia County, Florida, et al. v.
`JUUL Labs, Inc., et al.; (6) Three Village
`Central School District v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et
`al.; (7) Central Bucks School District, Bucks
`County, Pennsylvania v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et
`al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`
`Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Bellwether Government Entity Complaints
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 881 Filed 08/17/20 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`C.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION1 ................................................................................................................1
`ALL CLAIMS MUST BE DISMISSED ................................................................................2
`A.
`The Municipal Cost Recovery Rule Bars Plaintiffs’ Damages ..................................2
`B.
`Plaintiffs Fail to State a Public Nuisance Claim ........................................................3
`1.
`Plaintiffs Fail to Plead Interference with a Public Right ................................5
`2.
`Plaintiffs Fail to Plead that JLI Had Control over the Nuisance ....................7
`3.
`Plaintiffs Fail to Plead a Special Injury ..........................................................9
`Plaintiffs Fail to State Negligence-Based Claims ....................................................10
`1.
`The Economic Loss Rule Bars Plaintiffs’ Negligence Claims ....................10
`2.
`JLI Did Not Owe a Duty to Plaintiffs ..........................................................13
`(a)
`A Special Relationship is Required, but is Lacking Here ................13
`(b)
`Foreseeability Does Not Alone Establish A Duty Under
`California, Florida, and Pennsylvania Law ......................................15
`The California and Pennsylvania Gross Negligence Claims Fail ................17
`3.
`Plaintiffs Fail to Plead Proximate Cause ..................................................................17
`The Statutory Consumer Protection Claims Must Be Dismissed ............................18
`1.
`Three Village CSD Does Not Allege “Actual Damages” ............................18
`2.
`The Florida School Boards Do Not Allege “Actual Damages” ...................19
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................20
`
`D.
`E.
`
`
`1 By email agreement, Plaintiffs have stipulated to a 20-page limit for this reply brief.
`Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`
`-i-
`Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Bellwether Government Entity Complaints
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 881 Filed 08/17/20 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Allegheny Gen. Hosp v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
`228 F.3d 429 (3d Cir. 2000) .......................................................................................................17
`
`Alvarado v. Fed. Express Corp.,
`2008 WL 2340211 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2008) ...............................................................................5
`
`Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Auchter Co.,
`673 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................11
`
`Ashley Cty. v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`552 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................................17
`
`Ass’n of Wash. Pub. Hosp. Districts v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
`241 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................................17
`
`Baptiste v. Bethlehem Landfill Co.,
`965 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................9, 10
`
`Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris USA Inc.,
`344 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2009), certified question accepted, 100 N.Y.2d 636 (2003),
`certified question answered, 3 N.Y.3d 200 (2004) ....................................................................18
`
`Bradshaw v. Rawlings,
`612 F.2d 135 (3d Cir. 1979) .......................................................................................................14
`
`Camden Cty. Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta, U.S.A. Corp.,
`273 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2001) .........................................................................................................4
`
`City of Flagstaff v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co.,
`719 F.2d 322 (9th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................................................2
`
`City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
`126 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Pa. 2000) ...............................................................................4, 7, 8, 9
`
`Cook v. MillerCoors, LLC,
`829 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (M.D. Fla. 2011) .....................................................................................15
`
`Cty. of Erie, N.Y. v. Colgan Air, Inc.,
`2012 WL 1029542 (W.D.N.Y Mar. 26, 2012), aff’d, 711 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2013)
` ..................................................................................................................................................2, 3
`
`Cty. of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.,
`728 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1984) .........................................................................................................12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`-ii-
`Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Bellwether Government Entity Complaints
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 881 Filed 08/17/20 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Del Webb Communities, Inc. v. Partington,
`652 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2011) ......................................................................................................4
`
`Douglas Asphalt Co. v. QORE, Inc.,
`657 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................1, 4
`
`In re Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litig.,
`402 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................................................................17
`
`Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. v. Waste Mgmt. of New York, L.L.C.,
`405 F. Supp. 3d 408 (W.D.N.Y. 2019) ........................................................................................9
`
`Gordon v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`2017 WL 213815 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2017) ...............................................................................13
`
`Guest v. Hansen,
`2007 WL 4561104 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2007) ...........................................................................14
`
`Guttmann v. Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Co.,
`2015 WL 4309427 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................................5
`
`Ileto v. Glock Inc.,
`349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................4, 16
`
`Johnson v. Bryco Arms,
`304 F. Supp. 2d 383 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) ........................................................................................14
`
`Jordan v. City of Philadelphia,
`66 F. Supp. 2d 638 (E.D. Pa. 1999) ...........................................................................................17
`
`Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg Coll.,
`989 F.2d 1360 (3d Cir. 1993) .....................................................................................................16
`
`McCarthy v. Olin Corp.,
`119 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 1997) .......................................................................................................14
`
`McMahan v. Toto,
`311 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2002) ....................................................................................................8
`
`In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`2015 WL 4092326 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2015) ............................................................................4, 8
`
`In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig.,
`__ F. Supp. 3d. __, 2020 WL 1669655 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 3, 2020) .............................8, 16, 17, 19
`
`In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig.,
`440 F. Supp. 3d 773 (N.D. Ohio 2020) ..................................................................................9, 10
`Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`-iii-
`Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Bellwether Government Entity Complaints
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 881 Filed 08/17/20 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Nucal Foods v. Quality Egg LLC,
`918 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (E.D. Cal. 2013) ......................................................................................12
`
`Resnick v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc.,
`2017 WL 1531192 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017) ............................................................................12
`
`Rhodes v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
`636 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 2011) ..........................................................................................................6
`
`Rose Fuel Oil & Heating Co. v. Kia Motors of Am., Inc.,
`2004 WL 1202901 (E.D. Pa. June 1, 2004) ...............................................................................11
`
`Sommer v. Premier Nutrition Corporation,
`962 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2020) ....................................................................................................20
`
`Time Warner Entm’t-Advance/Newhouse P’ship v. Carteret-Craven Elec.
`Membership Corp., 506 F.3d 304 (4th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................4
`
`Tioga Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 15 of Williams Cty., State of N.D. v. U.S. Gypsum Co.,
`984 F.2d 915 (8th Cir. 1993) ....................................................................................................5, 7
`
`In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig.,
`2019 WL 294807 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2019) ...............................................................................13
`
`Vision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975, 1004 (7th Cir. 2006) ......................................4
`
`Whitaker v. Herr Foods, Inc.,
`198 F. Supp. 3d 476 (E.D. Pa. 2016) .........................................................................................13
`
`STATE CASES
`
`Aas v. Superior Court,
`24 Cal. 4th 627 (2000) ................................................................................................................13
`
`Abad v. G4S Secure Sols. (USA), Inc.,
`293 So. 3d 26 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020) ..............................................................................14, 15
`
`Biakanja v. Irving,
`49 Cal. 2d 647 (1958) .................................................................................................................13
`
`Bloxham v. Glock Inc.,
`203 Ariz. 271 (Ct. App. 2002) ...................................................................................................14
`
`City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
`213 Ill. 2d 351 (2004) .......................................................................................................3, 6, 8, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`-iv-
`Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Bellwether Government Entity Complaints
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 881 Filed 08/17/20 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`City of Chicago v. Latronica Asphalt and Grading, Inc.,
`346 Ill. App. 3d 264 (2004) ..........................................................................................................5
`
`City of Modesto Redevelopment Agency v. Superior Court,
`119 Cal. App. 4th 28 (2004) .........................................................................................................5
`
`City of New Haven v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.,
`2019 WL 423990 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2019) ..................................................................................7
`
`City of New York v. Smokes-Spirits.com,
`12 N.Y.3d 616 (2009) ..........................................................................................................18, 19
`
`Commonwealth v. Barnes & Tucker Co.,
`319 A.2d 871 (Pa. 1974) ..............................................................................................................4
`
`Connor v. Great W. Sav. & Loan Ass’n.,
`69 Cal. 2d 850 (1968) .................................................................................................................13
`
`In re Firearm Cases,
`126 Cal. App. 4th 959 (2005) .......................................................................................................5
`
`Gabriel v. Giant Eagle, Inc.,
`2015 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 15245 (Pa. Com. Pl. June 30, 2015) ................................12
`
`Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
`96 N.Y.2d 222 (2001) ..........................................................................................................13, 15
`
`Hoffman v. Sun Pipe Line Co.,
`394 Pa. Super. 109 (1990) ..........................................................................................................16
`
`J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory,
`24 Cal. 3d 799 (1979) .................................................................................................................13
`
`Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.,
`237 Cal. App. 4th 546 (2015) .....................................................................................................17
`
`Keystone Airpark Auth. v. Pipeline Contractors, Inc.,
`266 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019), review denied, 2019 WL 1371949
`(Fla. Mar. 27, 2019) ...................................................................................................................20
`
`Koch v. Consol. Edison Co. of New York,
`62 N.Y.2d 548 (1984) ..................................................................................................................3
`
`Lane v. City of Mount Vernon,
`38 N.Y.2d 344 (Ct. App. 1976) ....................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`-v-
`Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Bellwether Government Entity Complaints
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 881 Filed 08/17/20 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Lead Paint Litig.,
`191 N.J. 405 (2007) ......................................................................................................................7
`
`O’Neil v. Crane Co.,
`53 Cal. 4th 335 (2012) ................................................................................................................15
`
`In re Opioid Litigation,
`2018 WL 3115102 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 18, 2018) .......................................................................6
`
`Penelas v. Arms Tech., Inc.,
`1999 WL 1204353 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Dec. 13, 1999) ..........................................................................8
`
`Phillips v. Cricket Lighters,
`576 Pa. 644 (2003) ...............................................................................................................15, 16
`
`Pompano Motor Co. v. Chrysler Ins. Co.,
`875 So. 2d 754 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) ..................................................................................16
`
`Quiroz v. Alcoa Inc.,
`243 Ariz. 560 (2018) ............................................................................................................14, 15
`
`S. Cal. Gas Leak Cases,
`7 Cal. 5th 391 (2019) ................................................................................................11, 12, 13, 15
`
`Schauer v. Morse Operations, Inc.,
`5 So. 3d 2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) ..........................................................................................20
`
`Seebold v. Prison Health Servs. Inc.,
`618 Pa. 632 (2012) .....................................................................................................................15
`
`State Ex Rel. Stenehjem v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
`2019 WL 2245743 (N.D. Dist. May 10, 2019) ........................................................................7, 8
`
`State v. Lead Indus., Ass’n, Inc.
`951 A.2d 428 (R.I. 2008) .............................................................................................................7
`
`Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co.,
`171 Cal. App. 4th 564 (2009) .....................................................................................................16
`
`Thing v. La Chusa,
`48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989) .................................................................................................................16
`
`United States v. Stevens,
`994 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 2008) .......................................................................................................15
`
`Weimer v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC,
`47 Cal. App. 5th 341 (2020) .......................................................................................................12
`Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`-vi-
`Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Bellwether Government Entity Complaints
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 881 Filed 08/17/20 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Fla. Stat. § 501.211(2) ......................................................................................................................19
`
`New York General Business Law § 349 ....................................................................................18, 19
`
`New York General Business Law § 350 ..........................................................................................18
`
`TREATISES
`
`Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821C ..............................................................................................9
`
`Restatement (Second) of Torts § 832B .............................................................................................6
`
`Restatement (Second) of Torts § 834 .................................................................................................8
`
`Restatement (Third) of Torts § 8 ........................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`-vii-
`Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Bellwether Government Entity Complaints
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 881 Filed 08/17/20 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs urge this Court to stretch the boundaries of public nuisance, negligence, and
`statutory consumer protection law to allow school districts and a county government that never
`purchased Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (“ENDS”) products to sue JLI for economic
`damages allegedly resulting from others’ ENDS use. Plaintiffs’ claims depend on theories of alleged
`defects in JLI’s products and allegedly misleading advertising, yet Plaintiffs assert neither products
`liability nor fraud claims—presumably because they neither purchased nor used the products nor
`relied on any advertising. Plaintiffs’ inability to plead products liability or fraud claims does not
`give Plaintiffs a license to expand nuisance or negligence law, or to seek damages that are
`unrecoverable under statutory consumer protection law. Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed.
`At every turn, Plaintiffs ask this Court to cabin or disregard well-established state-law limits
`on nuisance and negligence claims. But this Court, sitting in diversity, must proceed cautiously.
`E.g., Douglas Asphalt Co. v. QORE, Inc., 657 F.3d 1146, 1154 (11th Cir. 2011) (“It is not the
`function of federal courts to expand state tort doctrine in novel directions absent state authority
`suggesting the propriety of doing so.”). This Court should decline Plaintiffs’ invitations to cast
`caution aside and expand state-law doctrines:
` Every jurisdiction at issue here applies the municipal cost recovery rule, but Plaintiffs
`ask the Court to distinguish their claims on policy grounds that other courts have rejected.
` Every jurisdiction here has recognized limits on public nuisance claims, but Plaintiffs
`ask the Court to cast aside those limits and to permit a nuisance claim out of what is
`effectively a claim of deceptive marketing or distribution of an allegedly defective
`product.
` Every jurisdiction here has either adopted the economic loss rule or limited the tort duty
`of care to plaintiffs who can show some special relationship with a defendant, but
`Plaintiffs ask the Court to disregard those limits and permit a negligence claim on policy
`grounds that would allow negligence claims by essentially any plaintiff that could assert
`some downstream economic injury from a defendant’s product.
` Florida and New York permit recovery only of “actual damages” under their consumer
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`-1-
`Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Bellwether Government Entity Complaints
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 881 Filed 08/17/20 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`protection statutes, but Plaintiffs ask this Court to let them pursue consequential and
`derivative economic injuries, in disregard of settled law in both jurisdictions.
`Because Plaintiffs have failed to plead cognizable causes of action, the bellwether
`government entity complaints should be dismissed.
`ALL CLAIMS MUST BE DISMISSED
`II.
`The Municipal Cost Recovery Rule Bars Plaintiffs’ Damages
`A.
`Plaintiffs do not dispute that they seek to recover money that the school districts and Santa
`Cruz County allegedly spent responding to increased ENDS use. Opp. 58. Recovery of such costs
`is barred in each jurisdiction by the well-established municipal cost recovery rule. Mot. 7-8.
`Plaintiffs’ arguments against application of this rule fail.
`First, Plaintiffs wrongly urge the Court to exempt public nuisance claims from the municipal
`cost recovery rule. Opp. 56. The authority Plaintiffs cite rejects this argument, because “[i]f such
`an exception were recognized, it would be the exception that swallows the rule, since many
`expenditures for public services could be re-characterized by skillful litigants as expenses incurred
`in abating a public nuisance.” Cty. of Erie, N.Y. v. Colgan Air, Inc., 2012 WL 1029542, at *4
`(W.D.N.Y Mar. 26, 2012) (citation omitted), aff’d, 711 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2013). Public
`plaintiffs may be able to recover only “distinct, well-defined categories” of costs of abating a public
`nuisance that are “unrelated to the normal provision” of public services or occur on private property.
`City of Flagstaff v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 719 F.2d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1983); see
`Colgan, 2012 WL 1029542, at *4. Examples of these costs include cleaning up groundwater,
`Atchison, 719 F.2d at 324, removing abandoned bridge piers, id., or removing a burned building that
`was in danger of collapsing, Lane v. City of Mount Vernon, 38 N.Y.2d 344, 347 (Ct. App. 1976).
`None of the alleged costs here—whether for counseling, training, educating, or disciplining
`students, or increased costs for physical modifications to schools or disposing of waste—are akin to
`the abatement costs for which courts have permitted recovery. All of these alleged extra costs relate
`to the ordinary costs of educating students or maintaining school property. As in Colgan, the
`government entities seek to recover additional costs allegedly incurred for performing their “own
`duty” of educating students; those extra costs are unrecoverable under the municipal cost recovery
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`-2-
`Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Bellwether Government Entity Complaints
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 881 Filed 08/17/20 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`rule, even if the costs arose from the actions of a third party. See 711 F. 3d at 153, 154.2
`Second, relying on decisions from the opioids litigation, Plaintiffs wrongly argue that, as a
`policy matter, the rule should be limited to “single, discrete incidents requiring a single emergency
`response” and should exclude conduct that is continuous or ongoing. Opp. 56-57 & n.27. In
`rejecting this same policy argument as “not . . . persuasive,” the Supreme Court of Illinois explained
`that this logic has it exactly backwards: “when the need for emergency services in response to an
`alleged nuisance is ongoing, the municipal cost recovery rule is stronger, not weaker, because the
`legislature is better able to consider the need for cost-recovery legislation than in cases of sudden
`disaster.” City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 213 Ill. 2d 351, 430 (2004) (applying municipal
`cost recovery rule to bar damages). The opioid cases (none of which is binding on this Court) fail
`to grapple with this policy analysis, but instead draw a false distinction between continuous and
`one-time events that finds no support in case law from the relevant jurisdictions.
`It is irrelevant that Plaintiffs may not have expected the need to spend more resources or
`provide programming to respond to ENDS use. In analyzing the municipal cost recovery rule, “no
`consideration is given to the extraordinary nature of the incident that necessitates the public service
`response.” Colgan, 2012 WL 1029542, at *2. Plaintiffs also provide no authority to support their
`theory that application of the rule depends on whether the public entity Plaintiffs themselves have
`the power to levy taxes, Opp. 58 n.30, and the distinction makes little sense. The rule applies to bar
`recovery of expenses by police and fire departments that depend on government funding, even when
`the relevant taxing authority is a municipal government. E.g., Koch v. Consol. Edison Co. of New
`York, 62 N.Y.2d 548, 560 (1984) (increased police, fire, sanitation, and hospital costs from citywide
`blackout not recoverable from utility by plaintiff city and public benefit corporations).
`The municipal cost recovery rule applies in each jurisdiction at issue to bar Plaintiffs from
`seeking reimbursement from JLI for their costs of providing educational and community services.
`Plaintiffs Fail to State a Public Nuisance Claim
`B.
`When sitting in diversity and attempting to determine how state courts would rule, this court
`
`
`2 Even if Plaintiffs were correct that the municipal cost recovery rule excludes damages from public
`nuisance, the rule would still bar the negligence-based damages Plaintiffs seek.
`Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`
`-3-
`Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Bellwether Government Entity Complaints
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 881 Filed 08/17/20 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`“should proceed cautiously” and “choose the narrower path.” City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A.
`Corp., 126 F. Supp. 2d 882, 906 (E.D. Pa. 2000); see also Del Webb Communities, Inc. v.
`Partington, 652 F.3d 1145, 1154 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Federal courts should hesitate prematurely to
`extend [state] law”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Douglas Asphalt Co., 657 F.3d at 1154
`(similar); Time Warner Entm’t-Advance/Newhouse P’ship v. Carteret-Craven Elec. Membership
`Corp., 506 F.3d 304, 314 (4th Cir. 2007) (similar); Vision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d
`975, 1004 (7th Cir. 2006) (same for supplemental jurisdiction). Plaintiffs have not shown that the
`relevant state courts would recognize these novel nuisance claims.
`Plaintiffs admit that the crux of their claims is the alleged “manufacture or deceptive
`marketing” of JLI products to underage users. Opp. 15. As the Third Restatement explains (see
`Mot. 12-13), theories of public nuisance “against the makers of products that have caused harm”
`have been “rejected by most courts . . . because the common law of public nuisance is an inapt
`vehicle for addressing the conduct at issue.” Restatement (Third) of Torts § 8 cmt. g. This Court,
`sitting in diversity, should not adopt expansive new theories of public nuisance that threaten to
`convert a slew of product-based claims, from car emissions to sugary foods, into putative public
`nuisance claims. See Camden Cty. Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta, U.S.A. Corp., 273 F.3d
`536, 541-42 (3d Cir. 2001) (“While it is of course conceivable that the Supreme Court of New Jersey
`may someday choose to expand state public nuisance law in the manner that the County urges, we
`cannot predict at this time that it will do so.”).
`Plaintiffs invoke inapt cases to justify applying public nuisance law to their product-based
`claims here. Opp. 14. Commonwealth v. Barnes & Tucker Co., 319 A.2d 871 (Pa. 1974), addressed
`discharge from a shuttered mine; it did not endorse converting products liability or consumer fraud
`into nuisance claims. See Beretta, 126 F. Supp. 2d at 908-09 (rejecting Barnes as “readily
`distinguishable” as it did not concern distribution of a product); see In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl
`Ether (MTBE) Prod. Liab. Litig., 2015 WL 4092326, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2015) (“In
`Pennsylvania, courts do not impose liability for public nuisance ‘in the context of injuries caused
`by defective product design and distribution.’”). Likewise, Plaintiffs cite the Ninth Circuit’s
`decision in Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1211 (9th Cir. 2003), but two California courts of
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
`-4-
`Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Bellwether Government Entity