HIMES v. SOMATICS

S273887 | California State Supreme Court

Interested in this case?

Request a Demo Track this case, and find millions of cases like it, let us show you how.
Filed April 4, 2022
Last Updated: 6 months, 3 weeks ago
Filing Date # Docket Text
7/23/2024Letter sent to counsel: opinion now final
6/20/2024Opinion filed. In conclusion, we answer the Ninth Circuit's certified question as follows: A plaintiff is not required to show that a stronger warning would have altered the physician's decision to prescribe the product to establish causation. A plaintiff may instead establish causation by showing that the physician would have communicated the stronger warning to the patient and an objectively prudent person in the patient's position would have thereafter declined the treatment notwithstanding the physician's continued recommendation of the treatment. Majority Opinion by Groban, J. -- joined by Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ.
6/18/2024Notice of forthcoming opinion posted. To be filed Thursday, June 20, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.
4/3/2024Cause argued and submitted
3/25/2024Motion for judicial notice granted. The request for judicial notice is granted.
3/12/2024Case ordered on calendar. To be argued on Wednesday, April 3, 2024, at 9:00 am, in Los Angeles. Counsel will have the option to appear in person, or remotely via video Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2023-05-11.
2/21/2024Letter sent to: Jonathan M. Freiman, counsel for respondent. Dear Counsel:. The court has directed me to thank you for your letter dated February 14, 2024, and to advise you that it has concluded that your request to avoid the potential oral argument dates of April 4-5, 2024, is supported by good cause. Please immediately update the court on an ongoing basis if additional conflicts constituting good cause arise. As you were previously informed, once the court files an order setting this case for oral argument, that date will not be changed absent exceptional cause, such as a medical emergency. Sincerely,. JORGE E. NAVARRETE. Clerk and. Executive Officer of the Supreme Court.
2/14/2024Notice of Unavailability of Counsel Filed. Jonathan M. Freiman, counsel for respondent requests that oral argument not be set for April 4-5, 2024.
1/24/2024Letter sent to: Dear Counsel:. The court has directed me to thank you for your letter dated January 23, 2024, and to advise you that it has concluded that your request to avoid the potential oral argument dates of May 23-24, 2024, is supported by good cause. Please immediately update the court on an ongoing basis if additional conflicts constituting good cause arise. As you were previously informed, once the court files an order setting this case for oral argument, that date will not be changed absent exceptional cause, such as a medical emergency. Sincerely,. JORGE E. NAVARRETE. Clerk and. Executive Officer of the Supreme Court.
1/23/2024Notice of Unavailability of Counsel Filed. Jonathan M. Freiman, counsel for respondent requests that oral argument not be set for May 23-24.
1/17/2024Notice of Unavailability of Counsel Filed. Bijan Esfandiari, counsel for appellant has not conflicts to report.
1/16/2024Oral argument letter sent. Dear Counsel:. Please be advised that the court could set this case for argument within the next few months. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's Administrative Order No. 2023-05-11, the Supreme Court has resumed in-person oral argument sessions. Counsel also have the option to appear remotely via video. Please consult the administrative order for additional relevant information and requirements. Schedules showing upcoming oral argument dates can be found at https://supreme.courts.ca.gov by clicking on "Oral Arguments Calendar," and then accessing the "Oral Argument Calendar Dates" documents. Any counsel who believes good cause exists to avoid scheduling oral argument for a particular date (including counsel who, before receiving this letter, have previously asked to avoid certain dates) should inform the court within 7 calendar days from the date of this letter with a detailed explanation for such cause. Thereafter, counsel must immediately update the court on an ongoing basis as additional conflicts constituting good cause may arise. Examples of conflicts previously found to constitute good cause to avoid scheduling argument on any particular date include significant health-related issues; prepaid and nonrefundable travel arrangements booked in advance of the court's notification regarding oral argument; and significant family events such as weddings. Examples of conflicts previously found not to constitute good cause include scheduled trial and hearing dates in lower courts; conflicting professional seminars, meetings, or conventions; and planned significant family events that do not conflict with the actual dates on which argument might be held. Once the court files an order setting this case for oral argument, that date will not be changed absent exceptional cause, such as a medical emergency. Immediately upon filing of the calendar setting this case for argument, the court will send counsel an email communication with (1) a copy of that document; (2) an appearance form, upon which counsel must provide the names of the attorney or attorneys who will present argument and indicate if they elect to appear remotely, along with further instructions governing any request to divide argument time; and (3) a general notice regarding appearance for oral argument before the court. If a party wishes to bring to the court's attention new authorities, new legislation, or other matters that were not available in time to be included in the party's brief on the merits, the party must comply with California Rules of Court, rules 8.630(d) and 8.520(d). Sincerely,. JORGE E. NAVARRETE. Clerk and. Executive Officer of the Supreme Court.
10/12/2023Received: Appellants' excerpts of record volume 5 of 6.
10/12/2023Received: Appellants' excerpts of record volume 2 of 6.
4/26/2023Notice of Unavailability of Counsel Filed. Jonathan M. Freiman, counsel for respondent requests that oral argument not be set for May 8-12, May 24-26, June 5-9, October 6 and December 7-8, 2023.
2/21/2023Change of contact information filed for: New address and law firm:. Wisner Baum, LLP. 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1750. Los Angeles, CA 90025Michelle Himes, Plaintiff and Appellant. Bijan Esfandiari, Retained counsel.
1/18/2023Filed: Reply to oppositionMichelle Himes, Plaintiff and Appellant. Bijan Esfandiari, Retained counsel.
1/18/2023Order filed. Appellant's application for leave to file a reply to opposition in support of motion for judicial notice, filed on January 17, 2023, is hereby granted.
1/17/2023Application filed. Bijan Esfandiari, counsel for appellant, submitted an application for permission to file reply brief in support of motion for judicial notice.Michelle Himes, Plaintiff and Appellant. Bijan Esfandiari, Retained counsel.
1/12/2023Opposition filed. Defendant and Respondent: Somatics, LLC. Attorney: Jonathan M. Freiman.
12/28/2022Motion for judicial notice filed. Plaintiff and Appellant: Michelle Himes. Attorney: Bijan Esfandiari.
12/28/2022Response to amicus curiae brief filed. Plaintiff and Appellant: Michelle Himes. Attorney: Bijan Esfandiari.
12/28/2022Response to amicus curiae brief filed. Defendant and Respondent: Somatics, LLC. Attorney: Jonathan M. Freiman.
11/28/2022Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice granted. The application of Mark P. Hirschboeck for admission pro hac vice to appear on behalf of American Psychiatric Association is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.).
11/28/2022Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice granted. The application of Aaron M. Panner for admission pro hac vice to appear on behalf of American Psychiatric Association is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.).
11/28/2022Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice granted. The application of E. Perot Bissell for admission pro hac vice to appear on behalf of American Psychiatric Association is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.).
11/28/2022Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: The Civil Justice Association of California. Attorney: Fred J. Hiestand.
11/28/2022Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of The Civil Justice Association of California for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).).
11/28/2022Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: The Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. Attorney: Alan J. Lazarus.
11/28/2022Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of The Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).).
11/28/2022Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: American Psychiatric Association. Attorney: Reid M. Figel.
11/28/2022Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of American Psychiatric Association for permission to file an amicus curiae brief is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).).
11/28/2022Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Attorney: Ashley M. Simonsen.
11/28/2022Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufactures of America for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).).
11/28/2022Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: California Life Sciences. Attorney: Cher Gonzalez. Attorney: David Gonzalez.
11/28/2022Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of California Life Sciences for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).).
11/21/2022Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. Fred J. Hiestand, counsel for amicus curiae, the Civil Justice Association of California, submitted an application for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent.
11/18/2022Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. Alan J. Lazarus, counsel for amicus curiae, the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., submitted an application for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent.
11/18/2022Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice (granted case). Application for pro hac vice admission of Aaron M. Panner to appeal as counsel for amicus curiae, American Psychiatric Association.
11/18/2022Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice (granted case). Application for pro hac vice admission of Mark P. Hirschboeck to appeal as counsel for amicus curiae, American Psychiatric Association.
11/18/2022Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice (granted case). Application for pro hac vice admission of E. Perot Bissell to appeal as counsel for amicus curiae, American Psychiatric Association.
11/18/2022Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. Reid M. Figel, counsel for amicus curiae, American Psychiatric Association, submitted an application for permission to file to file an amicus curiae brief in support of neither party.
11/18/2022Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. Ashley M. Simonsen, Counsel for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufactures of America submitted an application for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent.
11/17/2022Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. Cher Gonzalez and David Gonzalez, counsels for amicus curiae, California Life Sciences, submitted an application for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent.
11/9/2022Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: California Medical Association. Attorney: Cassidy C. Davenport. Attorney: Curtis A. Cole. Amicus curiae: California Dental Association. Attorney: Cassidy C. Davenport. Attorney: Curtis A. Cole. Amicus curiae: California Hospital Association. Attorney: Cassidy C. Davenport. Attorney: Curtis A. Cole.
11/9/2022Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of California Medical Association, California Dental Association and California Hospital Association for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).).
11/4/2022Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. Cassidy C. Davenport and Curtis A. Cole, counsels for amicus curiae, California Medical Association, California Dental Association and California Hospital Association, seeking permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent.
10/26/2022Filed: Answer brief on the merits. (UNREDACTED VERSION)Somatics, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. Jonathan M. Freiman, Pro hac vice** filed by order of the court on 10/26/2022. **.
10/26/2022Motion to file document under seal granted. Defendant and Respondent Somatics, LLC's "Motion to Seal Respondent's Brief on the Merits," filed and served on September 14, 2022, is granted. In ordering the sealing, this court makes the findings required by California Rules of Court, rules 2.550(d)-(e) and 8.46(d)(6). The clerk of this court is directed to file the unredacted Respondent's Brief on the Merits under seal.
10/20/2022Reply brief filed (case fully briefed). Plaintiff and Appellant: Michelle Himes. Attorney: Bijan Esfandiari. Reply brief filed (case fully briefed). Due on 10/19/2022 By 15 Day(s).
10/19/2022Received: Received timely reply brief on the merits, missing bookmarks, notify the counsel, ask to resubmit as soon as possible deem timely.
10/12/2022Extension of time granted. On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the reply brief on the merits is extended to and including October 19, 2022.
9/28/2022Application for extension of time filed. Bijan Esfandiari, counsel for appellant, Michelle Himes, seeks an extension of time 15 days to October 19, 2022, to file reply brief on the merits.
9/15/2022Filed: Notice of Errata. Somatics, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. Jonathan M. Freiman, Information only.
9/14/2022Answer brief on the merits filed. Defendant and Respondent: Somatics, LLC. Attorney: Jonathan M. Freiman. Answer brief on the merits filed. Due on 09/14/2022 By 0 Day. **REDACTED VERSION**.
9/14/2022Motion to file document under seal filed. Somatics, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. Jonathan M. Freiman, Information only.
7/26/2022Extension of time granted. On application of respondent and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including September 14, 2022.
7/22/2022Application for extension of time filed. respondent requesting extension until September 14, 2022 to file the answer brief on the merits. by Jonathan M. Freidman, counsel.
7/19/2022Certification of interested entities or persons filed. Somatics, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. Jonathan M. Freiman, Retained counsel.
7/15/2022Opening brief on the merits filed. Plaintiff and Appellant: Michelle Himes. Attorney: Bijan Esfandiari.
7/15/2022Certification of interested entities or persons filed. Michelle Himes, Plaintiff and Appellant. Bijan Esfandiari, Retained counsel.
6/15/2022Filed: Unredacted Pages 3, 5, 6, and 8-10. *Pursuant to this court's June 15, 2022, order granting plaintiffs request to seal the unredacted version of Somatics' "Letter re: Certified Question per Rule of Court 8.548(e)", dated April 21, 2022. Pages 3, 5, 6, and 8-10 are deemed filed under seal*.
6/15/2022Letter sent requesting certification of interested parties/entities
6/15/2022Request for certification granted. The request to appear pro hac vice is granted. Plaintiff's request to seal the unredacted version of Somatics' "Letter re: Certified Question per Rule of Court 8.548(e)", dated April 21, 2022, is granted as to pages 3, 5, 6, 8-10. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.550(d,) 8.46(d).) In ordering the sealing, this court makes the findings required by California Rules of Court, rules 2.550(d)-(e) and 8.46(d)(6). The clerk of this court is directed to file under seal pages 3, 5, 6, and 8-10 of the unredacted version of Somatics' "Letter re: Certified Question per Rule of Rule of Court 8.548(d)," dated April 21, 2022. The request, made pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, for this court to decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is granted as certified by the Ninth Circuit. For the purposes of briefing and oral argument, appellant Michelle Himes is deemed the petitioner in this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(a)(6).). Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins and Guerrero, JJ.
5/2/2022Received: Bijan Esfandiari, counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant, Michelle Himes submits this letter in response to the letter submitted by Defendant-respondent Somatics, LLC (?Somatics?) addressing the Ninth Circuit?s April 1, 2022 Order Certifying a Question to the Supreme Court of California.
4/21/2022Received: Bijan Esfandiari, counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant, Michelle Himes submits this letter in support of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit?s April 1, 2022 Order Certifying a Question to the Supreme Court of California.
4/21/2022Received: Unredacted versionJonathan M. Freiman, counsel for defendant and respondent, Somatics, LLC.
4/21/2022Motion filed. Jonathan M. Freiman, counsel for respondent submitted a motion to seal letter.
4/21/2022Received: Redacted VersionJonathan M. Freiman, counsel for defendant and respondent, Somatics, LLC.
4/20/2022Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice (pre-grant). Motion and memorandum in support of pro hac vice admission of Jonathan M. Freiman representing Defendant and Respondent in this proceeding.
4/18/2022Received: Appellee's supplemental excerpts of record volume 1 of 1 (Under Seal).
4/18/2022Received: Answering brief of defendant-appllee Somatics,LLC (Under Seal).
4/4/2022Received: Appellants' reply brief.
4/4/2022Received: Answering brief of defendant-appllee Somatics,LLC (Redacted).
4/4/2022Received: Appellants' excerpts of record volume 6 of 6.
4/4/2022Received: Appellants' excerpts of record volume 4 of 6.
4/4/2022Received: Appellants' excerpts of record volume 3 of 6.
4/4/2022Received: Appellants' excerpts of record volume 1 of 6.
4/4/2022Received: Appellants' excerpts of record index volume.
4/4/2022Received: Appellants' opening brief.
4/4/2022Received: General docket.
4/4/2022Request to answer question of state law filed. Information only: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.