Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Class Action Blogs -> The UCL Practitioner

Class Action

: The UCL Practitioner

Nine post-Tobacco II opinions

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

In preparation for our Rutter Group seminar last week, Will Stern and I compiled this list of the nine Court of Appeal opinions substantively construing Tobacco II:

Morgan v. AT & T Wireless Services, Inc., 177 Cal.App.4th 1235 (2009)  (no petition for review filed)

Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 178 Cal.App.4th 830 (2009) (no petition for review filed)

Cohen v. DirecTV, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 966 (2009) (rev. den. 02/10/10)

Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 179 Cal.App.4th 36 (Nov. 10, 2009) (rev. den. 02/04/10)

In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal.App.4th 116 (Dec. 15, 2009) (petition for review filed 01/25/10, no. S179699) 

Weinstat v. Dentsply International, Inc., 180 Cal.App.4th 1213 (Jan. 7, 2010) (petition for review filed 02/11/10, no. S180179)

In re Steroid Hormone Product Cases, 181 Cal.App.4th 145 (Jan. 1, 2010; mod. Feb. 8, 2010) (opinion; modification order) (petition for review filed 03/01/10, no. S180583)

McAdams v. Monier, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2010 WL 630973 (Feb. 24, 2010)

Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court (Galfano), ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2010 WL 660359 (Feb. 25, 2010; pub. order Mar. 2, 2010)

Four of these (Morgan, Weinstat, Steroid Hormone Cases, and McAdams) generally favor the plaintiff's side, while the others generally favor the defendant.  The decisions are difficult to reconcile, although Will and I tried to during the Rutter seminar.  I'm starting to think that the Supreme Court will need to select a case to take up and elaborate on Tobacco II.

Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on March 08, 2010 (boomark / email).