The Tobacco case is third on this morning's calendar, and will be webcast live starting at approximately 11:00 a.m. on The California Channel. My plan is to attend the argument and provide my own written report here tomorrow.
I will not be able to attend the Fairbanks argument, but a blog reader who is planning to be there has promised to provide a report for posting here on Thursday. I would be very glad to receive additional reports from anyone who attends the Fairbanks argument. Please forward them to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Meanwhile, here is background information about the two cases:
In re Tobacco II Cases, no. S147345 (review granted 11/1/06)
- Issues: (1) In order to bring a class action under Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), as amended by Proposition 64 (Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2004)), must every member of the proposed class have suffered "injury in fact," or is it sufficient that the class representative comply with that requirement? (2) In a class action based on a manufacturer's alleged misrepresentation of a product, must every member of the class have actually relied on the manufacturer's representations?
- Court of Appeal opinion: In re Tobacco II Cases, 142 Cal.App.4th 891 (2006) (Fourth Appellate District, Division One)
- Briefs: Some of the briefs are collected at these links.
Fairbanks v. Superior Court (Farmers New World Life Ins. Co.), no. S157001 (review granted 11/14/07)