10-2820 R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. AMANDA JEAN HALL, as Personal Representative for the Estate of ARTHUR HALL, SR.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida First District Court » 2011 » 10-2820 R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. AMANDA JEAN HALL, as Personal Representative for the Estate of ARTHUR HALL, SR.

State: Florida

Court: Florida First District Court

Docket No: 10-2820

Case Date: 07/12/2011

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA R.J. REYNOLDS COMPANY, Appellant, CASE NO. 1D10-2820 v. AMANDA JEAN HALL, as Personal Representative for the Estate of ARTHUR HALL SR., Appellee. ____________________________/ Opinion filed July 12, 2011. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Hon. Robert E. Roundtree, Jr., Judge. Stephanie E. Parker and Gregory G. Katsas, of Jones Day, Atlanta, Georgia; and Charles Trippe, of Moseley Prichard Parrish Knight & Jones, Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellant. Rod Smith, Mark A. Avera, and Dawn M. Vallejos-Nichols, of Avera & Smith, LLP, Gainsville, Florida; and John S. Mills and Gregory J. Philo, of The Mills Firm, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee. TOBACCO

ON MOTION FOR REVIEW OF STAY ORDER WETHERELL, J. Appellee seeks review of the trial court`s order denying her motion challenging the sufficiency of the bond posted by Appellant, R.J. Reynolds

Tobacco Company (RJR), pursuant to section 569.23(3), Florida Statutes (2010), to obtain a stay of the judgment in this Engle1 progeny case. Appellee contends that the bond is insufficient because the statute upon which it is based is unconstitutional. We reject Appellee`s constitutional challenges to section

569.23(3) and affirm the trial court`s order. Appellee obtained a $15.75 million judgment against RJR in this case. RJR appealed the judgment to this court and obtained an automatic stay of the judgment by posting a $5 million bond in accordance with section 569.23(3), rather than the approximately $17.6 million bond that would have been required for a stay under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(b)(1). Appellee filed a motion with the trial court to determine the sufficiency of the bond and, in that motion, Appellee argued that section 569.23(3) was unconstitutional. The Attorney General was permitted to intervene to defend the constitutionality of the statute. After a

hearing, the trial court denied the motion, citing an unpublished order of this court in another Engle progeny case2 and the Third District Court of Appeal`s decision in

1 2

Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Clay, No. 1D10-5544 (Apr. 12, 2011) (affirming order denying motion to determine sufficiency of bond). 2

BDO Seidman, LLP v. Banco Espirito Santo International, Ltd.3 Appellee seeks review of the trial court`s order pursuant to rule 9.310(f).4 As she did below, Appellee contends in her motion for review that section 569.23(3) is unconstitutional because 1) it is a special law granting a privilege to a corporation in violation of article III, section 11(a)(12) of the Florida Constitution, and 2) it impermissibly intrudes on the Florida Supreme Court`s authority to regulate practice and procedure in the courts under article V, section 2(a), thereby violating the separation of powers mandate in article II, section 3. Each claim will be addressed in turn after a brief discussion of the background, history and operation of section 569.23(3). Background In 1995, the State of Florida sued RJR and other cigarette manufacturers, asserting various claims for monetary and injunctive relief. See State of Fla., et al. v. Am. Tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 95-1466 AH (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct.). The suit was resolved in 1997 through a settlement agreement (commonly referred to as the FSA) that, among other things, required RJR and the other settling
3 4

998 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), rev. denied, 996 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2008). We have jurisdiction even though we affirmed the judgment in this case (see 2011 WL 1938199) and RJR filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. See City of Miami v. Arostegui, 616 So. 2d 1117, 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The issue framed by the motion was not rendered moot by our decision affirming the judgment because the stay provided by section 569.23(3) extends during the pendency of all appeals or discretionary appellate reviews of such judgment in Florida courts.

Download 10-2820 R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. AMANDA JEAN HALL, as Personal Represen