that there's been some stuff going on in this area so to speak and i think the bottom line is this we can talk of from an intellectual point of view and we can talk about what the cases say or what's going on in the law with the issue about this justifiable reliance and what a regular person out on the street thinks about cigarette smoking starting as a minor as this miss kanada did before nine hundred sixty nine and what happened to her and i think the best statements about these all these cases and i'm not really familiar with the other issues in the other cases that are sort of semi combined with this wednesday was the statement by patricia henley in the philip morris case where she about what she knew about cigarette smoking quote in her deposition there is a lot more perhaps it was a trial there is a lot of different degrees of danger it's dangerous to walk across the street when you're hooked on something and you have the need to have that you don't you don't listen to that type of warnings maybe if the tobacco company had come out and said our product is dangerous but i was listening and seeing things perhaps an appropriate thing to do that i don't have an objection to that because i don't think that there's any doubt that what's happening here in the reality is is that this case was filed in state court and then it was removed sort of toll the statue limitations because the bad acts continued if that were the case and i think once again the pleading you know this is extremely early in the game what are we going to are are we going to out without ever hearing from the plaintiffs and without have are hearing from the california supreme court on the issue before ever hearing from the california supreme court on the issue another words if this case was continuing on if it was down below and continuing on then there would be a good possibility to learn more about what the california courts were doing and prevent forum shopping by the defendants in this case because undoubtedly they removed the case because they thought i mean this is not one of those traditional removal of necessity types of cases where we were in the deep south and rigged the case to try to ensure that we got a fair jury this is one of those cases and i'm not trying to offend the defendants where there is no doubt and this happens all the time that they think they can get a well i don't know that they were necessarily put forth as such in the solomon opinion so if they weren't then i guess they aren't but from a realistic point of view i think that the the defendants and the courts below will look to solomon on that issue as this court did and consider solomon to be binding but i don't necessarily believe that those issues were decided in solomon and i think that's why it's important and these are important as your honour's can well imagine these are important cases because the bottom line is these kinds of cases cases like solomon where the person was appropriate i believe if i'm not mistaken when he argued before the ninth circuit are extremely devastating decisions to one side or another and they're extremely important i think it's important for the courts to take a really good look at this type of an issue in this case because of that and make sure that we're doing the right thing thank issue raised was whether or not the civil conspiracy doctrine of the wyatt case provided a grounds for getting around solomon no other grounds for avoiding solomon was asserted in the opening brief no request for certification was made no other ground was presented the judge in this case judge collins granted leave to amend after an initial motion to dismiss based on solomon's grounds in order specifically to allow the plaintiff to have the opportunity to identify a last overt act within the relevant time period having afforded that opportunity the only overt act that was a causes damage that means that there simply was no factual predicate after having been afforded an opportunity to come up with an overt act that would allow a factual basis in this case for a why at theory  plaintiff did not contest that there was common knowledge as a matter of law after nine hundred sixty nine the only argument made was that she had a viable fraud claim she contested common knowledge pre nine hundred sixty nine and said that that viable claim in her view viable claim was sustained under the wind of doctrine but no argument was presented that common knowledge that contested the common knowledge and notes that the california supreme court applied nagel in they applied the immunity statute to addiction claims on the grounds that there was common knowledge of addiction that's one of the bases that solomon reaches that conclusion issue was raised in this case i believe either of the law and certainly not in the opening grief that argued that there was a difference because there were claims under seventeen to one hundred or otherwise  hundred two hundred individual claim and of seven thousand five hundred false advertising individual claims sounds into fraud and therefore is i think subject to exactly the same analysis in solomon in terms of  court but of course that argument was not even raised in this case the only argument really is is the why and argument the other point i submitted in a twenty eight chain letter the thompson case which i think amplifies to the point that we made in our brief for lying on applied equipment that the overt action not only has to be within the limitations here but it has to be actionable conduct within the limitations period and and wired itself makes that clear that the tortures conduct was ongoing within the limitations period and solomon that makes solomon on all fours with respect to civil conspiracy because tolman addresses the viability of continuing tortious conduct sounding in fraud within the limitations period and holds as a matter of law that it cannot be satisfied because of the lack of justifiable reliance  was didn't it i don't think it did it at least iran may be referring to the underlying question which was one of the questions sought to be sort of finding grisham about whether or not addiction is a what the what the court did in solomon was to say it did not need to decide whether or not that was an appreciable injury for purposes of california law because the complaint takes the position that it is and the plaintiff is not in a position to ask the court and cannot ask the court to ignore that in construing the applicability of the statute of limitations so it didn't actually make an assumption about what california law might or might not be on that point but said that it doesn't need to be reached and certainly should not be reached in the context of the case where the complaint makes the kind of allegations that it in solomon as it does here in this case is even clearer cases than solomon because there's actually a request in that paragraph one hundred forty two of the complaint for recruitment of monies spent on cigarettes because of addiction binding they are data for what the california supreme court might do the only published decision that we have that in any way address those solomon and it dresses only one aspect of solomon is the rightly case and i don't believe that it provides us with sufficient basis for a certification to the california supreme court in this case the solomon discussion occurs concededly i think in dicta now they didn't express up but they referred to barker's discussion of common knowledge as dictate even though the what made barker's discussion in these eyes dicked was exactly the same that makes it addictive in whiteley they found the issue of common knowledge had been waived by a failure to raise it below and it's discussion in dicta on that limited point doesn't reach any of the other issues sought to be certified and provides no basis for questioning  i think that certification is is also not appropriate there's no issue raised here and i'll address it again perhaps in the grisham case with respect to the one or two injury rule that that's not even raised within come out at all it was not raised below it's not raised in any in this case is at least you're saying i'm saying that because why it the only argument made against solomon was why there was no argument in the opening brief that there was that challenge is post hundred sixty nine common knowledge it's only challenge is precisely not the only argument made it was why it's civil conspiracy the case stands or falls on that it clearly falls as judge collins recognized she gave them a chance to try and fit within it and they they failed to do so it simply doesn't present the kinds of issues that would possibly warrant certification thank you thank you to i think first of all that i want to make sure that the records correct i don't believe that there's any allegation in the complaint that she did not smoke or light cigarettes i don't believe that that's in there anywhere but even if she did not i don't necessarily believe that that in another would preclude her claims because she alleged that she one of the things that she would allege and if she didn't in this complaint she should have been granted leave to if that was the issue the real issue why the court below dismissed the case was because of solomon but the facts of the matter is is she still was relying on the beliefs that were being set down by the tobacco companies and that light cigarette issue was an important issue on that too and it was a statement made not to deceive just the people that were smoking light cigarettes but to deceive everybody in the general public to get them to believe the tobacco companies and to continue to keep  gas again or is it a point zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero one percent risk and then the some people will because a pin venus because there's not another gas station in the neighborhood so when your honor was talking guilty as sin some people think you are innocent the thing before you pick a jury and then some people say i don't know even with all that publicity out there all that common knowledge some people say i don't read the papers i don't read the magazines don't watch t v so are we supposed to look at what mr canady knew or did not know and whether she's a qualified juror so to speak in these cases or are we supposed to just say well here we are the surgeon general put out a warning said it would may be hazardous to your health may i remember when i was a little boy that was the first statement that came out it was years it was ninety five percent chance this wasn't will cause heart attack it