Case ID: f-appx_47/html/0848-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Linda COLFIELD, Bonnie MacDonald, Lyall Riffe, Edmund I. Philippet, Judith Meeks and Dana Bice, Sean J. Maroney, Thelma Lamonte, Mary Ann Johnston, Suzanne Canepa, Patricia J. Dysart, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO.; American Brands, Inc.; BAT Industries; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Corporation; Philip Morris Tobacco Corporation; Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation; RJR Nabisco, Inc.; British American Tobacco Company; Batus, Inc.; Bates Holding, Inc.; Philip Morris Companies, Inc.; Liggett Group; Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company; Brook Group, Ltd.; Lorillard Tobacco Corporation; Lorillard, Inc.; United States Tobacco; UST, Inc., Council for Tobacco Research, Tobacco Institute, J.F. Walker Company, dba Linco Distributors, Defendants—Appellees, Darrell W. Helt; Phillis Davis; Betty R. Kane; Joseph Catalano; Mary Crismon; Mary Joy Merwin; Molly Dow; Ellen Webster; Glenn Webster, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. American Tobacco Co.; American Brands, Inc.; BAT Industries; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Corporation; Philip Morris Tobacco Corporation; Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation; RJR Nabisco, Inc.; British American Tobacco Company; Batus, Inc.; Bates Holding, Inc.; Philip Morris Companies, Inc.; Liggett Group; Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company; Brook Group, Ltd.; Lorillard Tobacco Corporation; Lorillard, Inc.; United States Tobacco; UST, Inc., Council for Tobacco Research, Tobacco Institute, J.F. Walker Company, dba Linco Distributors, Defendants—Appellees.
    Nos. 99-16934, 99-16916.
    D.C. Nos. CV-98-1695-DFL-DAD, CV-98-01697-DFL.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted  Dec. 15, 2000.
    Submission Withdrawn and Deferred Dec. 27, 2000.
    Decided Sept. 30, 2002.
    Before BOOCHEVER, O’SCANNLAIN, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pursuant to the stipulation by appellants Helt, Davis, Kane, Catalano, Crimson, Merwin, Ellen and Glenn Webster, Riffe, Philippet, Meeks, Bice, Maroney, Lamonte, Johnston, and Dysart, their appeals are DISMISSED with prejudice and with each party to bear its own costs.

With respect to appellants Dow, Col-field, MacDonald, and Canepa, their cases are REMANDED to the United States District Court for proceedings consistent with the California Supreme Court’s holdings in the cases of Myers v. Philip Morris Cos., 28 Cal.4th 828, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 40, 50 P.3d 751 (Cal.2002) and Naegele v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 28 Cal.4th 856, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 61, 50 P.3d 769 (Cal.2002).

Case No. 99-16916 is DISMISSED IN PART and REMANDED IN PART; case No. 99-16934 is DISMISSED IN PART and REMANDED IN PART. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.