Leslie J. Grisham v. Philip Morris U.s.a., a No. 03-55780 corporation

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 LESLIE J. GRISHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A., a
No. 03-55780 corporation; BROWN & WILLIAMSON
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,
No. 03-56018v.
D.C. No.PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., aka  CV-02-08026-ABCPhilip 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

-- 1 of 4 --

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 ___,
3780 GRISHAM v. PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A.

-- 2 of 4 --

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.
3781 GRISHAM v. PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A.

-- 3 of 4 --

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.

-- 4 of 4 --