Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Class Action Blogs -> The UCL Practitioner
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Class Action
: The UCL PractitionerSupreme Court dismisses final Tobacco II "grant and hold" case: O'Brien v. Camisasca Automotive Mfg.
By Kimberly A. Kralowec
On Thursday, November 19, 2009, the Supreme Court finally acted on the last of the Tobacco II "grant and hold" cases, O'Brien v. Camisasca Automotive Mfg., no. S163207. Instead of transferring the case back to the intermediate appellate panel for further proceedings, as in McAdams and Pfizer (Galfano), the Court simply dismissed review. The dismissal order reads:
In light of the decision in In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298 and Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum LP (2009) 24 Cal.4th 634, review in the above-entitled matter is dismissed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(b)(1).)
(Hyperlink added.) This means that the earlier Court of Appeal opinion stands and binds the parties, but it remains unpublished. Here is my original blog post on the Court of Appeal opinion, and the opinion itself (Second Appellate District, Division Three).
I'm sure the similarity of issues between O'Brien and Kwikset was not lost on the Supreme Court. Both are "Made in the U.S.A." cases that lower courts dismissed for lack of Prop. 64 standing (although the similarities end there). Perhaps the Court felt that leaving the O'Brien opinion unpublished was the best way to manage the development of the case law in this area. O'Brien, of course, was decided long before review was granted in Kwikset, and I'm not sure there is any procedural way to convert O'Brien into a Kwikset "grant and hold" case, which it could easily have become if it had been handed down later.
Interestingly, both O'Brien and Pfizer/Galfano are Second Appellate District, Division Three cases, and two of the panel Justices (Klein and Kitching) are the same. Justice Croskey will join in re-deciding Pfizer/Galfano in a few weeks, whereas Justice Aldrich was the third panelist in O'Brien.
Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on November 24, 2009 (boomark / &linkurl=http://mail.uslaw.com/library/Class_Action/Supreme_Court_dismisses_final_Tobacco_II_grant_hold_case_OBrien_v_Cami.php?item=649143' rel=nofollow title='The UCL Practitioner'>email).
5150 Hold
California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150-5157
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Smokeless Tobacco Increases Risk of Stroke and Heart Attack
Smokeless Tobacco Increases Risk of Stroke and Heart Attack
Philip Morris
Jury Decides Against Big Tobacco
Final Fantasy XI
Square Enix Faces Class Action over Deceptive Fees and Payments
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Facing Potential Class Action
Defective Automotive Paint
Class Action Settlement Proposed
Bad Faith Estimate
Quality First Auto Glass pays $233,000 settlement in automotive lawsuit.

Might the Harris limit on Apprendi be at risk with O'Brien cert grant
Supreme Court Dismisses Major Tobacco Case
"Supreme Court Upholds Tobacco Award"
"Portland widow beats Big Tobacco"
U.S. Supreme Court dismisses appeal of Oregon tobacco punitive damages award
Williams Saga Ends: Supreme Court Dismisses Philip Morris's Appeal as Improvidently Granted








