 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Morris5/20/1997
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
BROWN, J.
Facts
On May 1, 1996, the State of Maryland filed suit against Philip Morris Incorporated, Philip Morris Companies, Inc.; R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; R J R Nabisco, Inc.; Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation; British American Tobacco Company., LTD.; Batus Holdings, Inc.; B.A.T. Industries, P.L.C.; Lorillard Tobacco Company; Lorillard Corporation; Loews Corporation; The American Tobacco Company; American Brands, Inc., Liggett Group, Inc.; Liggett & Meyers, Inc.; The Brooke Group, Ltd.; Hill & Knowlton, Inc.; the Council for Tobacco Research - USA, Inc.; and The Tobacco Institute, Inc.
Several Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and as a result of discussions between the Plaintiffs and certain Defendants, the action of the Plaintiffs was dismissed against Philip Morris Companies, Inc.; R.J.R. Nabisco, Inc.; Batus Holdings, Inc.; B.A.T. Industries, P.L.C.; Loews Corporation; and American Brands, Inc.
The remaining Defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(b) alleging, inter alia, that all of the common law, statutory, and equitable claims in the complaint fail to properly state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Defendants allege that the common law tort claims contained in counts 6 through 13 of the Plaintiffs' complaint cannot be maintained in the name of the State of Maryland because the Plaintiffs are limited to the statutorily imposed remedy of subrogation contained in ยง 15-120 of the Maryland Health-General Code Annotated. The Defendants further allege that each of the common law counts of the complaint are deficient and should be dismissed on independent grounds because most of the claims there asserted are barred by "the economic loss rule" in that the State has failed to show that Defendants owed any legally cognizable tort duty to the State.
As to count 5, the Defendants allege that said count is deficient as an equitable claim because the State has an adequate remedy at law, and because the State has failed to allege essential elements for a claim of restitution based upon unjust enrichment. Finally, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' statutory claims, as pled in counts 1 through 4 of the complaint and based upon the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, found in Title 13 of the Maryland Commercial Law Code Annotated, and the Maryland Antitrust Act, found in Title 11 of the Maryland Commercial Law Code Annotated, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the State has no standing to assert either of these statutory claims.
The parties having supplied memoranda of law in support of their respective positions, the matter was set for hearing on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and such hearing was conducted on January 29, 1997 during four (4) hours of argument.
Purpose of the Motion to Dismiss
In deciding the issues raised by Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss, the Court must first briefly examine the purpose and function of the Motion to Dismiss under the Maryland Rules.
Maryland Rule 2-322, titled "Preliminary Motions" provides in section (b) that: "The following defenses may be made by motion to dismiss before the answer, if an answer is required.... (2) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." The Rule further provides in subsection (c) that:
"A motion under sections (a) and (b) of this Rule shall be determined before trial, except that a court may defer the determination of the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted until trial. In disposing of the m
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Maryland Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|