Notice of Removal from Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case Number (2026-L-002215) Filed by Liggett Group LLC, Philip Morris USA INC., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Walgreen, CO. Filing Fee $ 405, Receipt Number AILNDC-24915565. (Menichetti, David)

Document #1 Filed 03/30/2026 · 316 pages · District Court, N.D. Illinois · View original PDF

1On February 25, 2026, Plaintiff Frank Apa filed his Complaint (Ex. 1) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 2026-L-002215, alleging that he was diagnosed with COPD and emphysema in or shortly after May 2024 as a result of smoking cigarettes, beginning around 1972. See Compl. ¶¶ 3, 9.

2Plaintiff brought this action, in part, against the Manufacturer Defendants, all of which manufacture, market, and sell cigarettes. As to PM USA and Reynolds only, Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence (Count I), strict liability (Count II), fraudulent concealment (Count III), and fraudulent misrepresentation (Count V). Against all Manufacturer Defendants, Plaintiff asserts claims for conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment (Count IV) and conspiracy to commit fraudulent misrepresentation (Count VI).

3None of the Manufacturer Defendants is an Illinois citizen. See infra Sect. I.B. Seeking to avoid federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff—who is a citizen of Illinois—also asserts claims for 1 Each of the Manufacturer Defendants has signed and hereby consents to this removal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A).

Case: 1:26-cv-03513 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 2 of 316 PageID #:2 negligence (Count VII) and strict liability (Count VIII) against Walgreen Co. (“Walgreens”), an Illinois retailer.

4While removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship (see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)), a fraudulently joined defendant—like Walgreens here—is ignored when determining whether there is complete diversity. In other words, fraudulent joinder is an exception to the complete diversity requirement. See infra Sect. I.C; see also Walton v. Bayer Corp., 643 F. 3d 994, 999 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Suppose removing defendants argue that the nondiverse defendant was joined simply to defeat removal, as might be inferred from a demonstration that the claim against that defendant had no possible merit. This is called ‘fraudulent joinder’ and bars remand to state court, which is why we describe it as an exception to the requirement of complete diversity” (emphases added)).

5Under well-settled Seventh Circuit case law, a party has been fraudulently joined if there is no “reasonable possibility” that the plaintiff could prevail against that party under the governing law. See, e.g., Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc., 959 F.2d 69, 73 (7th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff does not have a “reasonable possibility” of prevailing on his claims against Walgreens under Illinois law, and, accordingly, Walgreens has been fraudulently joined.

6The thrust of Plaintiff’s Complaint is that the Manufacturer Defendants allegedly designed their cigarettes to be unreasonably dangerous; conspired to misrepresent and conceal the hazards of smoking to Plaintiff and the public; and engaged in marketing campaigns calculated to deceive Plaintiff and the public as to the health hazards and addictive nature of smoking. Case: 1:26-cv-03513 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 3 of 316 PageID #:3

7In support of these claims, the vast majority of Plaintiff’s allegations are directed against the Manufacturer Defendants. Compl. ¶¶ 14–163. For example, the Complaint includes a series of historical allegations directed solely to the Manufacturer Defendants. Compl. ¶¶ 14–53.

8Although Plaintiff incorporates those allegations against the Manufacturer Defendants into the negligence and strict liability claims that he asserts against Walgreens (see id. ¶¶ 164, 195), none of these allegations mentions Walgreens.2 Indeed, the Complaint does not include any factual allegations that Walgreens was involved in any way in the design or manufacture of cigarettes. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that Walgreens is liable for the cigarettes it sold, distributed, marketed, and promoted to Plaintiff. See id. ¶¶ 193, 197. Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations directed to Walgreens consist entirely of conclusory statements and selective quotations from documents that, on their face, do not set forth any facts that support Plaintiff’s theory. See id. ¶¶ 164–98. At bottom, the Complaint alleges merely that Plaintiff purchased a lawful product (cigarettes) from a lawful, non- manufacturer retailer of those products who played no role in designing or manufacturing them (Walgreens).

9As discussed in length herein (see infra ¶¶ 31–35), a court in this District dismissed nearly identical negligence and strict liability claims with prejudice against Walgreens, in a case filed by the same Plaintiff’s counsel,3 with allegations that mirror the allegations against 2 Plaintiff’s allegations directed solely at the Manufacturer Defendants similarly do not include any facts concerning Walgreens or its conduct. 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Complaint in Clay were both filed by Meyers & Flowers, LLC. Compare Compl. at 60 with Clay Complaint at 50 (Ex. 2).

Case: 1:26-cv-03513 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 4 of 316 PageID #:4 Walgreens here. See Clay v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-03549 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2020) (Norgle, J.) (“Clay Order II”) (Ex. 3).4

10Accordingly, the Manufacturer Defendants remove this case to federal court because there is complete diversity between Plaintiff and all of the properly joined Defendants, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See infra Sects. I.C–D.

11Removal is thus proper for these reasons, and because the other procedural requirements for removal have been met. See infra Sect. II.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

12Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 93, 1391, 1441(a), and 1446(a) because the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, where the Complaint was filed, is a state court within the Northern District of Illinois.

13This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because (1) there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and all properly joined Defendants; and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.

ARGUMENT

REMOVAL IS PROPER BECAUSE THERE IS COMPLETE DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $75,000.

14Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 4 While other courts in this District have found similar allegations sufficient and have granted motions to remand to state court, see, e.g., Order, Mitchell v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. 18-C-7739, Dkt. No. 85 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 2019) (Blakey, J.); see also infra fns. 8–9, Defendants maintain, for the reasons discussed herein, that the decision in Clay should be followed here because it correctly applied the law.

Case: 1:26-cv-03513 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 5 of 316 PageID #:5

Read the full filing

You’re reading pages 1–5 of 316. Register free to read the complete 316-page transcript on this page.

These are public U.S. federal court records, available free from PACER and the court. Registration unlocks our full on-page transcript — a convenience service.

Public U.S. federal court record (district court docket 73115821, document 1). Source via the RECAP Archive (Free Law Project). The same record is available from PACER. Informational only — not legal advice.