Opinion
S283862
05-02-2024
GILEAD TENOFOVIR CASES
A165558 First Appellate District, Div. 4
Order filed
The order filed in the above-entitled matter on May 1, 2024, is amended to read as follows:
The applications to appear as counsel pro hac vice are granted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.)
The petition for review is granted.
Pending review, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which is currently published at 98 Cal.App.5th 911, may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, to choose between sides of any such conflict. (See Standing Order Exercising Authority Under California Rules of Court , Rule 8.1115(e)(3), Upon Grant of Review or Transfer of a Matter with an Underlying Published Court of Appeal Opinion, Administrative Order 2021-04-21; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3) and corresponding Comment, par. 2.)
Jenkins, J., was recused and did not participate.
Votes: Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, and Evans, JJ.