be deemed the petitioners, as they are the appellants before our court. II. Certified Question We certify to the California Supreme Court the following question of state law that is now before us: Does California Civil Code § 846, California’s recreational land use statute, immunize a landowner from liability for acts of vehicular negligence committed by the landowner’s employee in the course and scope of his employment that cause personal injury to a recreational user of that land? The phrasing of the question set forth above should not restrict the California Supreme Court’s consideration of the issues involved, and that court may reformulate the question. We will accept the decision of the California Supreme Court. See Aceves v. Allstate Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). III. Statement of Facts On August 29, 2004,
recognizing that federal courts are bound by pronouncements of the california supreme court on applicable state law holding that our courts are bound by the united states supreme courts interpretation of the federal constitution recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law holding that california courts assertion of personal jurisdiction over floridabased reporters did not violate due process when allegedly defamatory article that was the basis of the suit focused on the california activities of california residents