California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a notice of its intent to list the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) as a reproductive toxicant under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). The agency has proposed the action “under the authoritative bodies listing mechanism,” noting that the National Toxicology Program—Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction published a report in 2008 concluding that “the chemical causes developmental toxicity in laboratory animals at high levels of exposure.” Comments are requested by February 25, 2013. OEHHA has also proposed adopting a maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for BPA of 290 micrograms per day. Comments on this proposal are requested no later than March 11, 2013. According to the agency, “Some businesses may not be able to afford the expense of establishing a MADL and therefore may have to defend litigation for a…
Tag Archives California
A federal court in California has dismissed statutory and common law claims filed in a putative class action against Sioux Honey Association Cooperative, alleging that the company falsely labels its Sue Bee Clover Honey® product as “honey,” despite removing the pollen from the product. Ross v. Sioux Honey Ass’n Coop., No. 12-1645 (N.D. Cal., decided January 14, 2013). The court found the claims preempted or insufficiently pleaded in the plaintiff’s third amended complaint and, concluding that any further amendment would be futile, granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. So ruling, the court declined to rule that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit, finding that her pleadings satisfied the requirements of Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011), in which the California Supreme Court recognized that allegations of economic injury arising from reliance on a product manufacturer’s alleged misrepresentations satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for standing under…
At the request of a polystyrene custom mold manufacturer, California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) will conduct a February 14, 2013, public workshop “concerning OEHHA’s intent to list styrene as a chemical known to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (commonly known as Proposition 65 [Prop. 65]).” According to the agency’s notice, discussions “should be limited to whether the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Report on Carcinogens has identified styrene as a human carcinogen or potential human carcinogen. OEHHA cannot consider scientific arguments concerning the weight or quality of the evidence considered by NTP.” The hearing will be webcast. OEHHA has also extended the public comment period until February 28. See OEHHA News Release, January 17, 2013.
A California resident has filed a putative class action against General Mills, Inc. alleging that two of its frozen vegetable “steamers” products are falsely advertised as “100% Natural” because they contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Cox v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-6377 (N.D. Cal., filed December 17, 2012). According to the complaint, the products contain GM corn, soy, corn derivatives, and/or soy derivatives. Seeking to certify a statewide class of those who have purchased Green Giant Valley Fresh Steamers®, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s False Advertising and Unfair Competition laws and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. She requests injunctive relief; restitution; disgorgement; actual, statutory and punitive damages; attorney’s fees; costs; and interest.
A federal court in California has determined that Asian-American interest organizations have not sustained their burden of showing that they are entitled to preliminarily enjoin the shark fin ban that took effect January 1, 2012, in the state. Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Brown, No. 12-3759 (N.D. Cal., decided January 2, 2013). Additional details about the case appear in Issue 447 of this Update. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on their claims of discrimination against the Chinese-American community that uses shark fins in traditional dishes served at many banquets and special events. Finding that the state had a rational basis to impose limits on shark finning and that the state regulations did not overlap federal restrictions, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a notice of intent to list styrene as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65), citing the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP’s) finding that styrene is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” Comments are requested by February 4, 2013. According to the notice, the proposed listing “meets the standard set out in the recent Court of Appeal decision in the Styrene Information and Research Council v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (3rd District, Nov. 15, 2012) case because the NTP conclusion is based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Often used in food packaging materials, styrene occurs naturally at low levels in certain shrubs and trees. California consumers must be provided with warnings about those chemicals included on the Prop. 65 list. See OEHHA Notice of Intent, January 4, 2013.
According to a news source, the first “popcorn-lung” occupational exposure case tried in California has resulted in a defense verdict. Velasquez v. Flavor & Extract Mfrs. Ass’n, No. BC370319 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., verdict reached December 12, 2012). The plaintiff was a former flavoring factory employee who claimed that his exposure to the butter-flavoring chemical diacetyl caused his debilitating lung disease, bronchiolitis obliterans. His attorney was quoted as saying, “The defense was very effective in confusing the jury,” observing that the defense suggested that the plaintiff’s health problems could have been attributed to acetaldehyde, another chemical flavoring. The lawsuit originally involved 10 defendants, a number of whom settled with the plaintiff before trial. Plaintiff’s counsel has reportedly indicated that the verdict will be appealed, citing, among other matters, the trial corut’s decision to allow the jury to hear that the plaintiff is an illegal immigrant. See Law360, December 13, 2012.
A plaintiff who claims he began consuming Monster Beverage energy drinks as a teenager, because he was offered free beverages from a truck parked outside his high school, has filed a putative nationwide consumer-fraud class action against the company in a California federal court. Fisher v. Monster Beverage Corp., No. 12-02188 (C.D. Cal., filed December 12, 2012). Among other matters, he claims that the company aggressively markets the products to youth and falsely labels them as dietary supplements to avoid regulation under Food and Drug Administration beverage rules. He further contends that the products are addictive. Alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages; corrective labeling, advertising and marketing; full restitution and disgorgement; and interest.
A federal court in California has dismissed in part putative class claims filed by a man who alleges that Ghirardelli Chocolate Co. white chocolate products do not contain the requisite white chocolate ingredients to be labeled and promoted as such. Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., No. 12-04936 (N.D. Cal, decided December 6, 2012). The court agreed with Ghirardelli that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims relating to four products that he did not purchase. According to the complaint, the plaintiff bought a package of “Ghirardelli Chocolate Premium Baking Chips Classic White” and sought recovery on behalf of a class of purchasers of that product as well as white chocolate wafers, ground white chocolate flavor, a mocha mix, and a frappé product. Noting that controlling authority is lacking on whether plaintiffs have standing for products they did not purchase, the court discussed two lines of cases: one in which federal courts have…
In an unpublished decision, a California appeals court has determined thatInnovation Ventures, LLC, the parent company which makes 5-Hour Energy®, may proceed with a malicious prosecution action against Howard Rubinstein and other consumer-fraud attorneys in connection with a putative class action filed against the company in 2010 on behalf of a woman, Vi Nguyen, whose claims about the product apparently changed during her deposition, leading to the suit’s voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Rubinstein, No. G046242 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., decided November 29, 2012) (unpublished). The court noted that the underlying consumer-fraud complaint referred in a number of places to the named plaintiff as “he” and that the named plaintiff did not believe she had ever seen the complaint or she would have corrected these references. She also apparently had never seen the attorneys of record “and had just met Rubinstein the day before her deposition.”…
