Category: Proposition 65

Subscribe to Proposition 65 RSS Feed

Food Litigation Year in Review

Perkins Coie has published its first Food Litigation Year in Review, covering key developments and trends in food litigation for calendar year 2016.  The Year in Review’s key insights include data-driven assessments of how (and where) the plaintiffs’ bar has continued its assault on the food industry in 2016. That data reflect the filing of … Continue Reading

New Filings – April 3, 2017

Consumer Advocacy Grp., Inc. v. Chulada, Inc., et al., No. BC651577: (Cal. Super. Ct. – Los Angeles Cnty.): Proposition 65 action alleging defendants fail to warn consumers that their ground shrimp contains cadmium and cadmium compounds, and lead and lead compounds. Envtl. Research Ctr., Inc. v. Blackstone Labs, LLC, No. RG17-850885: (Cal. Super. Ct. – … Continue Reading

New Filings for January 23, 2017

Manemeit v. Gerber Products Co., et al., No. 2:17-cv-00093 (E.D.N.Y.): Putative class action alleging Defendants deceptively labels their “Good Start” infant formula as “the first and only formula whose consumption reduces the risk of infants developing allergies,” when such statement is false. Complaint. Miller v. Yucatan Foods, L.P., No. BC645421 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Los … Continue Reading

Consent Judgment Entered in Proposition 65 Action

Consumer Advocacy Grp. v. Olivier Napa Valley, Inc. et al, No. BC580857 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Los Angeles County):  The Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for entry of consent judgment in this Proposition 65 action alleging that Defendants’ raspberry balsamic vinegar products contain lead. The terms of the settlement are: (1) Defendant is permanently enjoined … Continue Reading

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Action Challenging Proposition 65 Regulatory Safe Harbor for Lead

Mateel Envtl. Justice v. OEHHA, No. RG15754547 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Alameda Cnty.): The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in this action seeking to invalidate the Proposition 65 regulatory safe harbor for lead.  The Court rejected Plaintiff’s assertion that the OEHHA adopted the safe harbor level after erroneously relying on a … Continue Reading

Settlement Proposed In Superfood Prop 65 Suit

Environmental Research Ctr. v. Athletic Greens (USA) Inc., No. RG15791200 (Cal. Sup. Ct. – Alameda Cnty.):  In this Proposition 65 action alleging that Defendant’s nutritional health products contain lead, Plaintiff moved for approval of settlement and for entry of consent judgment. The terms of the settlement require Defendant to place a Proposition 65 warning label … Continue Reading

OEHHA Issues Proposed Regulations Regarding Proposition 65 Warning Requirements

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment recently issued to proposed regulations regarding California’s Proposition 65 that, if passed, will impact food and beverage companies, as well as manufacturers of other products sold in California. First, OEHHA issued proposed regulations regarding what is deemed a “clear and reasonable warning” under Proposition 65.  The regulations provide … Continue Reading