N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ELANIE M INTZ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. PHILIP M ORR IS USA, INC .; R .J. R EYNOLDS TOB AC C O C O M PANY,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-15397 D.C . No. 4:04-c v-01221-PJH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Phy llis J. Ha

m i lton, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 7, 2020 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : LUC ER O, ** W
. FLETC HER , a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s.
M e la nie M intz , a s suc c e ssor-in-inte re st to Nikki Pooshs, a ppe a ls a fina l judgm e nt in fa

vor of de fe nda

nts Philip M orris USA, Inc . a nd R .J. R e ynolds 

# FIL ED

DEC 17 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble C arlos F. Luc e ro, Unite d State s C i rc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.Toba c c o C om pa ny following a

jury ve rdic t in the de fe nda

nts’ favor. Exe rc ising jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly instruc te d the jury re ga

rding but-for c a

usation. Ge ne ra lly , a

pla i ntiff m

ust e sta blish tha t the a lle ge d ha

rm would not ha

ve ha ppe ne d but for thede fe nda nt’ s wrongful c onduc t . Se e Vine r v . Sw e e t , 30 C a l. 4th 1232, 1239 (2003). This re quire m e nt is re l a xe d in situa tions involving
c onc urre nt indepe nde nt c a use s. Se e Major v . R.J

. Re y n olds Tobac c o C

o. , 14 C a l. App. 5th 1179, 1196 (2017). Pooshs’ c l a im did not pre se nt suc h a

situa tion. The que stion be fore the jury wa s sim ply whe the r sm o king c iga

re tte s of a ny kind c a use d Pooshs’ c anc e r. Ne ithe r Pooshs nor the de fe nda n ts a l le ge d a

c onc urre nt inde pe nde nt c a

use . The re wa s the re fore no ne e d for the distric t c ourt to de viate from the ordina

ry jury instruc tion re ga

rding but-for c a

usation. 1 Also a ppropria te wa s the distric t c ourt’ s e xc lusion of e vide nc e re lating to Pooshs’ othe r pote ntia lly

sm oking-re late d dise a se s unde r Fe d e ra l R u le of Evide nc e 403. Pooshs ha d stipula

te d tha t the se dise a se s we re se p arate an d distinc t from he r lung c anc e r. Se ePooshs v . Philip Morris USA, Inc

. , 2016 W L 860985, a t *6-7 (N.D. C a l. M a

r. 7, 2016). Thedistric t c ourt’ s c onc l usion tha t e vide n c e c onc e rning

1 Ev e n i f Phi l i p Mo r

r i s ’ a l t e r na t i v e demi ni m i

s us e ar g um e nt

c o ns t i t ut e d a c o nc ur r e nt i nde pe nde nt c a us e , any i ns tr uc t i o na l e r

r o r w a s har m l e s s i n l i g ht

o f t he j ur y ’ s v e r di c t

a s t o R.J. Re y

no l ds
. Se eKe nne dy v . S. Cal i f or ni a Edis on Co. , 268 F.3d 763, 770- 71 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001)
. 2the s e dise a s e s would the re fore be irre le va nt a nd unfa irly

pre judic ia l, c iting
c onc e rns a

bout jury c onfusion a

nd im prope r e lic i tation of sy

m pat hy , wa s not a

n
a buse o f disc re tion unde r the “ c onside ra ble de fe re nc e ” we owe the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm i nation. Unite d State s v . Hank e y , 203 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th C ir. 2000) (quota tion omi tte d). The distric t c ourt’ s re

je c t ion of Pooshs’ re que st to inc lude a que stion a

bout the a lloc ation of fa

ult on thespe c ia l ve rdic t form wa s a lso not re ve rsible e rror. Evide n c e c onc e rning the c ulpa bility of a ny pa rty othe r tha

n de fe nda n ts ha d be e n
e xc lude d prior to tria l. M i ntz ’ s argum e nt tha t the jury m ay not ha

ve wishe d to hold thede fe nda

nts re sponsiblebe c a

use the y be lie ve d tha

t Pooshs’ injury

wa s pa rtly but not e ntire l y

the de fe n da

nts’ fa ult is there fore not only

spe c ulative but be lie d by the re c ord. The argum e nt is a l so c o ntra dic te d by the a c tua l ba s is ide n tifie d by

the jury for the ir ve rdic t: the ir a

nswe r of “No” to the que stion on the
ve rdic t form

a bout whe the r sm o king thede fe n da n t s’ c iga re tte s c a u se d Pooshs’ lung c anc e r. AFFIRM E D
.

3