Proposition 65

Proposition 65 is a California law used to generate frivolous lawsuits against companies that fully comply with federal regulations concerning environmentalism, but lack unusual disclosures demanded by California's peculiar law.

Denial of access to federal courts

California's scheme is to trap defendants in California state court. Towards this end, federal courts in California have denied access to federal courts in defense of Proposition 65 claims:

“

Courts in this [Ninth] Circuit have found that plaintiffs suing under Proposition 65 lack standing to sue in federal court. See Environmental World Watch, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., No. C05-1799 TEH, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48951, 2005 WL 1867728, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2005) ("Proposition 65's expanded conception of standing has no authority to alter the scope of federal jurisdiction."); Toxic Injuries Corp. v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 57 F. Supp. 2d 947, 950, 957 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (granting plaintiff's motion to remand based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and finding that because the complaint did not allege injury, causation, or damages, plaintiff had not alleged an injury in fact and lacked Article III standing); As You Sow v. Sherwin-Williams Co., No. C-93-3577-VRW, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18310, 1993 WL 560086, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 1993) (finding lack of standing in Proposition 65 case where plaintiff "does not allege that any of its individual members were injured by defendants"). Other courts, while not addressing Proposition 65 specifically, have denied standing in connection with similar private attorney general suits. See, e.g., Lee v. American National Insurance Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1001-002 (9th Cir.2001) (citations omitted) (noting parties' agreement that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue unfair competition claim where plaintiff "did not buy any [life insurance] policy from ANTEX and so did not suffer any injury due to ANTEX's conduct"); Brain Injury Policy Institute v. Shewry, No. C 06-2973 SI, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57317, 2006 WL 2237732, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2006) (finding lack of standing where "[t]he complaint does not allege any injury to BIPI or any of the individual plaintiffs, and instead expressly alleges that each plaintiff brings suit on behalf of the general public and/or as a taxpayer"); Levy v. Dial Corp., No. C-97-0537 MHP, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21398, 1997 WL 588925 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 1997) (remanding unfair competition case involving misleading product packaging where the complaint did not allege that the plaintiff ever bought the product or was personally misled); Mortera v. North America Mortg. Co., 172 F. Supp. 2d 1240, 1244 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (Orrick, J.) (remanding unfair competition claim brought in the public interest where the plaintiff alleged no direct injury as a result of the alleged wrongful business practice). Defendants argue primarily that the Supreme Court's decision in Laidlaw compels the conclusion that Plaintiff has standing. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Svcs., 528 U.S. 167, 120 S. Ct. 693, 145 L. Ed. 2d 610 (2000). Laidlaw held that a citizen group had standing to sue under the Clean Water Act despite a lack of environmental harm. Id. at 181. ... [But in] the instant case, in contrast to Laidlaw, Plaintiff states unequivocally that he "has made absolutely no allegations that he personally has suffered an injury in fact from his own personal use or purchase of defendants' products."

”

Brimer v. Amash Imps., Inc., No. C11-5291 EMC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206730, at *11-14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2012).