Case Name: Nikki POOSHS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-14
Citations: 442 F. App'x 361
Docket Number: No. 08-16338
Parties: Nikki POOSHS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and HART, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
Nikki POOSHS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-16338.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 12, 2008.
Filed July 14, 2011.
Lloyd F. Leroy, James P. Nevin, Esquire, Gilbert L. Purcell, Esquire, Brayton Purcell, LLP, Novato, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Daniel Paul Collins, Munger, Tolies & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, James Lee Dumas, Esquire, Jenny Bown, Esquire, Alicia J. Donahue, Esquire, Chris Johnson, Esquire, Kevin Underhill, Esquire, Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Peter N. Larson, Jones Day, Stanley G. Roman, Esquire, Tracy M. Clements, Esquire, Krieg, Keller, Sloan, Reilley & Roman, LLP, Raymond Charles Marshall, Esquire, Bingham McCutchen, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Paul Crist, Esquire, Ashlie E. Case, Esquire, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, J. Leah Castel-la, Esquire, McDonough Holland & Allen PC, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
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.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Following certification of certain questions by this court, the California Supreme Court clarified the state law limitations period applicable to plaintiffs claims. Based on that decision, the judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision. See Pooshs v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 788, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 578, 250 P.3d 181 (2011).
Also, the pending related mandamus petition is moot and will be dismissed.
Because of plaintiffs illness, the district court is urged to resolve the remaining issues in this case as soon as possible.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.