GRISHAM V PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A.

Filing 920070403

Opinion

Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LESLIE J. GRISHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A., a corporation; BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO COMPANY CORP., individually and as successor to the American Tobacco Company and its predecessor in interest, British American Tobacco Industries, PLC, Defendants-Appellees. No. 03-55780 D.C. No. CV-02-07930-SVW Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding MARIA CANNATA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., aka Philip Morris; BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. No. 03-56018 D.C. No. CV-02-08026-ABC ORDER Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding 3779 3780 GRISHAM v. PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. Argued and Submitted December 10, 2004--San Francisco, California Filed April 3, 2007 Before: Jerome Farris, Dorothy W. Nelson, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam Order COUNSEL Martin Louis Stanley, Santa Monica, California, for plaintiffappellant Maria Cannata. Frances M. Phares, Baum Hedlund, PC, Los Angeles, California; Daniel U. Smith, Law Office of Daniel U. Smith, Kentfield, California, for plaintiff-appellant Leslie J. Grisham. Murry R. Garnick, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Maurice A. Leiter, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Los Angeles, California; Daniel P. Collins, Munger Tolles & Olson, LLP, Los Angeles, California; Fred D. Heather, Amy W. Schulman, DLA Piper, LLP, Los Angeles, California; Sheila B. Schuerman, Temple University School of Law, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for defendant-appellee Philip Morris. Paul Crist, Jones Day, Cleveland, Ohio; Peter N. Larson, Jones Day, San Francisco, California, for defendant-appellee Brown & Williamson. ORDER PER CURIAM: In light of the California Supreme Court's decision in Grisham v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., ___ Cal. Rptr. 3d ___, GRISHAM v. PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. 3781 No. S132772, 2007 WL 473678 (Cal. Feb. 15, 2007), and in light of the Joint Report of the Parties Re: Decision of the California Supreme Court on the Certified Questions, the judgments of the district court are VACATED and we REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the California Supreme Court. In light of the Joint Report of the Parties Re: Decision of the California Supreme Court on the Certified Questions, we also VACATE our previous order of March 16, 2007 calling for supplemental briefing from the parties in Cannata v. Philip Morris, 03-56018. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE--U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST--SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted 2007 Thomson/West.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?