Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 3, 2007
• Docket: 03-55780
• Status: Published

Opinion

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 No. 03-55780 TOBACCO COMPANY CORP.,  D.C. No. individually and as successor to CV-02-07930-SVW the American Tobacco Company and its predecessor in interest, British American Tobacco Industries, PLC, Defendants-Appellees.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

MARIA CANNATA,  Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 03-56018 PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., aka  D.C. No. CV-02-08026-ABC Philip Morris; BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO ORDER CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees.  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 plaintiff- appellant Maria Cannata.

Frances M. Phares, Baum Hedlund, PC, Los Angeles, Califor- nia; Daniel U. Smith, Law Office of Daniel U. Smith, Kent- field, California, for plaintiff-appellant Leslie J. Grisham.

Murry R. Garnick, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Maurice A. Leiter, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Los Angeles, Cali- fornia; Daniel P. Collins, Munger Tolles & Olson, LLP, Los Angeles, California; Fred D. Heather, Amy W. Schulman, DLA Piper, LLP, Los Angeles, California; Sheila B. Schuer- man, Temple University School of Law, Philadelphia, Penn- sylvania, 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 consis- tent 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.