Case ID: f-appx_442/html/0358-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Nikki POOSHS, Nikki Pooshs, Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, Respondent, Phillip Morris USA, Inc.; Philip Morris Companies, Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; Nabisco Group Holdings Corp.; Nabisco Inc.; Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation, individually and as successor by merger to The American Tobacco Company and its predecessors in interest; British American Tobacco Company PLC; Lorillard Tobacco Company; Lorillard Inc.; Liggett Group Incorporated; Liggett & Myers Inc.; Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company; Vector Group Ltd.; Hill & Knowlton Inc; Tobacco Institute, Inc.; Council for Tobacco Research USA Incorporated; DNA Plant Technology, Corporation; Safeway Inc., Real Parties in Interest.
    No. 08-73153.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 12, 2008.
    Filed July 14, 2011.
    Lloyd F. Leroy, James P. Nevin, Esquire, Brayton Purcell, LLP, Novato, CA, for Petitioner.
    Peter N. Larson, Jones Day, James Lee Dumas, Esquire, Randall D. Haimovici, Esquire, Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Gayle L. Gough, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP, Stanley G. Roman, Esquire, Krieg Keller Sloan Reilley & Roman, LLP, Raymond Charles Marshall, Esquire, Bingham McCutchen, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Ashlie E. Case, Esquire, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, J. Leah Castel-la, Esquire, McDonough Holland & Allen P.C., Oakland, CA, for Real Parties in Interest.
    Before: B. FLETCHER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and HART, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable William T. Hart, Senior District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.