Modification: In re Essure Product Cases

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION^*

In re ESSURE PRODUCT CASES.

LHC GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

BAYER CORPORATION,

Defendant and Respondent.

No. A166579

(JCCP No. 4887)

(Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG16804878)

California Court of Appeal

First Appellate District

Division Three

Filed January 10, 2024

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

AND DENYING REHEARING;

NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

In re Essure (A166579)

Trial Court: Alameda County

Trial Judge: Hon. Evelio Grillo

Attorneys:

Law Offices of Jessica A. Schaps, and Jessica A. Schaps; Bienstock, and Theodore Martin Bienstock; Weisbrod Matteis & Copley, Shane Welch for Appellants.

DLA Piper, Brooke Kim, Stanley J. Panikowski, Justin R. Sarno, Ilana H. Eisenstein for Respondents.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Andrew D. Silverman for amicus curiae on behalf of Respondent.

THE COURT:

Respondent's petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion is modified as follows:

The last sentence of the first full paragraph on page 10 is deleted and replaced with:

It simply seeks to recover damages that it and its participants sustained from Bayer's failure to warn about Essure --- claims assigned to LHC through the subrogation clause to enforce on behalf of Plan participants. (LHC Grp., Inc., at ** 2-3; Garbell v. Conejo Hardwoods, Inc. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1563, 1571.)

Following the penultimate sentence of the first full paragraph on page 14, add:

(Deck v. Developers Investment Co., Inc. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 808, 824 [abuse of discretion exists if the trial court's decision is based on an error of law].)

Date 1/10/2024

Tucher, P.J.

^*Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts II and III of the Discussion section.