Features

SAN DIEGO — A lawsuit seeking $682 million from tobacco companies for improperly marketing to California teen-agers has moved a step closer to class-action status with a state court’s tentative ruling. 

An estimated 1.5 million Californians who smoked as minors between April 1994 and December 1999 could be eligible to join the case against R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson, and Philip Morris. 

Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prager issued a tentative ruling in favor of class-action status Friday. Oral arguments on the issue are to be heard next week: Norm Blumenthal, an attorney for the plaintiffs, is optimistic Prager will formalize the decision then. 

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of six San Diego area residents who began smoking when they were teens. 

The suit claims that in-store tobacco promotions are placed near candy shelves and at children’s eye level and that advertising images encourage minors to light up. 

The suit seeks the profits from sales made on the ads targeted to youth, an estimated $682 million, Blumenthal said Monday. 

It also seeks to discourage the placement of cigarettes on countertops where they can easily be stolen by teens and to stop tobacco companies from using images that appeal to minors. 

“It’s time for the (Marlboro) cowboy to ride off into the sunset with Joe Camel,” Blumenthal said. 

Michael York, an attorney for Philip Morris, said the company intended to argue against class-action certification next week. 

R.J. Reynolds said it was confident the tobacco companies would prevail. 

“There is simply a fundamental lack of merit in trying to handle tobacco-related lawsuits as class actions,” the company said in a statement. 

Even under California law, “the plaintiffs must be able to identify who is in the class and which class members have been affected by the alleged unfair business practices. There is no mechanism to do either in this case.” 

Representatives of Brown & Williamson and Lorillard Tobacco Co. did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

Judge Prager in April had declined to grant class-action status to the case, noting that damages were available without the designation. But three rulings from the state Supreme Court since then — two dealing with unfair competition lawsuits and another limiting the reasons courts can deny class-action status — “changed the legal landscape and allowed us to go in for reconsideration,” Blumenthal said. 

Given California’s “unique consumer protection laws,” this case appears likely to be the first involving teens and tobacco advertising to win class-action status, he said. 

On the Net: http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/jccp/tobacco/orders/tr001130.html