ROBINSON v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. et al

Filing 35

ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AS TIMED BARRED IS DENIED; DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIM IN COUNT I OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED TO THE EXTENT THAT PLAINTIFF ALLEGES DEFECTS IN DEFENDANTS' WARNINGS PRIOR TO 1969 AND GRANTED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS; DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S NEGLIGENCE CLAIM IN COUNT II OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 4/22/19. 4/24/19 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PLAINTIFF AND E-MAILED.(jaa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID ROBINSON,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC,
et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 18-1743

ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, 2019, upon consideration of the Motion by Defendants
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip Morris USA, Inc. to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim (Doc. No. 28) and the separate Motion by Defendant Philip Morris USA to Dismiss for
Lack of Product Use (Doc. No. 27), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims as time barred is DENIED;
2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s product liability claim in Count I of the
Amended Complaint is DENIED to the extent that Plaintiff alleges defects in Defendants’
warnings prior to 1969 and GRANTED in all other respects;
3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s negligence claim in Count II of the Amended
Complaint is DENIED;
4. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s “youth marketing” claim in Count III of the
Amended Complaint is GRANTED;
5. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for insufficient process is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of this
Order in which to effectuate proper service on the Defendants. Failure to do so may result

in dismissal of his Amended Complaint.

Defendants shall have twenty-one (21) days

after service in which to file Answers.
6. Defendant Philip Morris’s separate Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Product Use is
DENIED.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
______________________________
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.