HONOLULU (Legal Newsline) - A man who blames cigarette manufacturers for his throat cancer can’t sue law firms in state court in Hawaii over claims they conspired to mislead consumers there, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled, although the theory of “conspiracy jurisdiction” might work given different facts.
Affirming for the first time the idea that out-of-state defendants can be subject to Hawaii jurisdiction even if they never had any contacts with the state, the Hawaii Supreme Court said the only requirement is that the co-conspirators knew they were assisting with illegal activities there. Unfortunately for plaintiff Marvin Manious, there wasn’t any evidence lawyers at Shook Hardy & Bacon and two other law firms had specific knowledge of a conspiracy targeting Hawaii consumers, the court ruled.
“Representing a client is not enough,” the court stated in an Oct. 18 decision. “Absent allegations that a law firm operates in Hawaiʻi or that the firm knows of a co-conspirator’s overt acts in Hawaiʻi to advance the conspiracy, a plaintiff’s claim against a law firm is just an allegation about `out-of-state activity by out-of-state actors.’”
Manious and his wife sued Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Covington & Burling, Greenspoon Marder, Womble Bond Dickinson and two local stores in state court in Hawaii in 2022. They accused the law firms playing a “central role in the creation and perpetuation” of a conspiracy to hide the harms of smoking including addiction and cancer.
Acknowledging none of the law firms were based in Hawaii or did any significant business there, the plaintiffs claimed “conspiracy jurisdiction,” under which an out-of-state actor can be haled into state court for assisting a defendant who was active there. In October 2022 Judge D.S. Kim agreed, ruling his court had jurisdiction over Shook Hardy, Covington Burling and Womble without any analysis of contacts with the state or due process concerns. He dismissed claims against Greenspoon Marder.
The law firms petitioned the Hawaii Supreme Court on the question of jurisdiction and the high court dismissed the claims against them, at the same time affirming conspiracy jurisdiction for the first time. The plaintiffs argued the law firms were involved in a nationwide conspiracy, including in Hawaii, to deceive consumers.
“Going nationwide though does not mean a defendant purposefully directs conduct at any particular state,” the Supreme Court said.
The defendants argued conspiracy jurisdiction would violate their constitutional rights, citing Walden v. Fiore, a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision rejecting Nevada jurisdiction over a Georgia police officer accused of illegally seizing a Nevada resident’s cash at the Atlanta airport. Courts in Nevada, Utah and Tennessee nevertheless preserved conspiracy jurisdiction, the Hawaii Supreme Court said, as well as the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Courts may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant based only on someone else’s conduct,” the Supreme Court said. “Yet Walden says nothing about a defendant who participates in a conspiracy that substantially targets a forum state – and knows it.”
Manious’s attorneys failed to come up with that evidence, however. They pulled documents from a national database of tobacco evidence, including ads targeting Hawaii, but didn’t come up with anything showing the law firms specifically aided in a conspiracy to target Hawaii consumers, the court concluded.
“A lawyer and client may be co- conspirators. But not here,” the court said, citing an April 2009 episode of Breaking Bad called "Better Call Saul."