Cases
Representative Experience: False Advertising
17500
San Mateo County Superior Court
Defendant Auto Auction Company
Business And Commercial Litigation
Defended an auto action company in a 17200/17500 action.
The court found in favor of our client
neither injunctive relief nor restitution was granted.
Proposition 65, Nail Polish
San Francisco County Superior Court
Defendant Cosmetics Manufacturer
Proposition 65, Toxic Tort
Defended a cosmentics manufacturer in a suit involving allegations regarding solvents used in nail polish.
Following laboratory tests attesting to the exposure to retail customers
employees of nail salons, we negotiated the elimination of the warning requirement from our client's products covered by a prior settlement negotiated by another law firm.
CERCLA
USDC: Central District of California
Defendant Chemical Manufacturer
Environmental
Defended a chemical manufacturer in a private CERCLA action. Our client was the generator of allegedly hazardous substances deposited at a licensed liquid waste disposal facility now owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to obtain moneys from generators to fund the closure of the facility. We were key in organizing a joint defense committee to oppose this questionable action. The plaintiff, which had signed a consent decree with state regulators several years previously to close the site, sought approximately $10 million in response costs.
Sucessfully entered into a very favorable de minimis settlement.
False Advertising
17500
San Francisco County Superior Court
Defendants Health Food Manufacturer
Business And Commercial Litigation
Defended a health food manufacturer in a 17200/17500 action. Our clients were two manufacturers of ginseng products accused of mislabeling in violation of Federal Law in a case with over 150 defendants.
Negotiated a de minimis settlement with no admission of wrongdoing. Over half of the defendants are still in litigation 2 years later.
CERCLA
RCRA
USDC: Central District of California
Defendant Dry Cleaning Company
Environmental, Real Estate
Defended the past owners of a dry cleaning business at a shopping center purchased by a vulture investor in a CERCLA action.
Following an extensive mediation, we negotiated a very favorable settlement that imposed the vast majority of the clean-up on the investor, who had bought the property at a significant discount from market value.
Personal Injury
Toxic Tort
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Defendant Municipallity
Catastrophic/Personal Injury, Environmental, Real Estate, Toxic Tort
Currently defending a municipality in a personal injury
property damage matter composed of six coordinated cases involving 1, 138 plaintiffs. Our client is one of two defendants accused of being the cause of the alleged harm. The matter involves, among other accusations, contamination of drinking water resources in the Pomona region of Southern California.
The matter currently is in litigation. Following extensive motions, the Superior Court dismissed 26 of the plaintiff's 28 courses of action against our client. Recently, the court ruled in favor of our client
dismissed the entire case. The plaintiffs have appealed.
Proposition 65
San Francisco County Superior Court
Defendant Tool Manufacturer
Business And Commercial Litigation, Proposition 65, Toxic Tort
Defended a tool manufacturer in a Proposition 65 case involving allegations regarding PVC h
les which supposedly contained lead.
Successfully demonstrated that the products that the plaintiff had tested were forgeries of our client's products,
further that the h
les of our client's products were lead-free. The case was dismissed.
Unfair Business Practice
17200
San Francisco County Superior Court
Defendant Importer
Business And Commercial Litigation
Defended an importer in 17200 actions in which our client was accused of selling two products in violation of state st
ards, as well as employing unfair business practices.
Successfully demonstrated that there were no violations,
thus, the cases were dismissed.
Proposition 65
San Francisco County Superior Court
Defendant Manufacturer
Business And Commercial Litigation, Proposition 65, Toxic Tort
Defended a manufacturer against an allegation that involved solvents used in glue.
Successfully demonstrated that the exposure level to consumers from our client's products was below the Proposition 65 threshold. The matter was dismissed.
False Advertising
17500
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Defendant Pest Control Companies
Environmental
Defended nine pest control companies in actions in Northern
Southern California. Our client was accused of fraudulent advertising related to environmentally sensitive pest control services.
Successfully negotiated a de minimus settlement for our clients.
Proposition 65
Asbestos
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Defendant Pest Control Company
Asbestos, Proposition 65, Toxic Tort
Defended a pest control company against a Proposition 65 lawsuit by a local citizen's group which alleged the release of hazardous asbestos fibers inside a school building.
Successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff's analysis of the asbestos release did not document a violation of any applicable state or federal st
ards or guidelines. Additionally, we were able to demonstrate that the property owner was at fault for the release due to its failure to post warning signs m
ated by state
federal law so that such release could be avoided by service providers, such as our client. The case was dismissed.
Water Pollution
Regional Water Quality Control Board Administrative Action
Defendant Industrial Company
Environmental
Represented a major industrial company in a Regional Water Quality Board administrative enforcement action pertaining to the multi-million dollar clean-up of an ab
oned sulfur mine located near San Francisco Bay. The mine was located on property previously owned by a corporate subsidiary of our client.
Following contested administrative hearings, we succeeded in having the designation of discharger (responsible party) reversed on an appeal to the State Water Resources Control Board.
First Amendment
United States Supreme Court
Media Companies
Business And Commercial Litigation, International
On behalf of two European media companies we filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in which we argued that the interpretation of Section 17500 B.&P.C. by the California Supreme Court seriously interfered with the European Union's requirements that companies report on social, environmental,
ethical issues in their annual reports. The brief may be found at this link: Kasky v. Nike
Unfair Business Practice
17200
Contra Costa County Superior Court
Defendant Consumer Goods Manufacturer
Business And Commercial Litigation
Successfully defended a consumer goods manufacturer in a case related to claims of unfair business practices in the sale of personal care products.
The matter was dismissed.
Unfair Business Practices
Unfair Competition
California Court of Appeal, First District
Defendant Food & Catering Enterprise
Business And Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property
Represented a food
catering enterprise in an Unfair Business Practice Act matter involving allegations of trade name infringement, unfair competition
Lanham Act violations.
Obtained a defense jury verdict.
Personal Injury
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Defendant Manufacturer
Catastrophic/Personal Injury, Real Estate, Toxic Tort
Currently represent one of several dozen defendants accused of contributing to contamination of drinking water aquifiers in the San Gabriel Valley of Southern California in a personal injury
property damage matter that is composed of six conslidated cases involving several thous
plaintiffs.
The matter is currently in litigation,
will go to trial in 2005.
CERCLA
USDC: Eastern District of California
Defendant Connecticut Court Receiver
Environmental
Represented the Connecticut court receiver that was charged with administering the assets of a decedent's trusts in a CERCLA
injunctive relief action. The decedent was the owner of a business enterprise that allegedly discharged solvents having a major impact on drinking water supplies in Chico, California. The State sought $20 + million in response costs related to the two sites allegedly contaminated.
By summary judgment motion, the receiver was held not responsible for one of the two sites at issue. A settlement was reached on the second site pursuant to which the receivership was not required to pay any moneys.
CERCLA
USDC: Northern District of California
Defendant Owner
Advertising Injury, Environmental, Real Estate
Represented the owner, who was fraudulently induced to acquire real estate for development, in an environmental matter involving litigation against both the seller
those persons who caused the contamination. We also represented the owner in an administrative enforcement action brought by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
In the latter administrative action, our client was deemed secondarily liable, thus imposing the clean-up obligation on the other parties. Following our filing of a motion for summary judgment in the litigation against the other parties, one of the two defendants conceded liability. The District Court then subsequently ruled in favor of our client regarding the liability of the second defendant,
further granted rescission of the sales transaction based upon fraud. The case was ultimately settled with a very substantial payment made to our client.
Unfair Business Practices
San Francisco County Superior Court
Plaintiffs Group of Chinese-Americans
Business And Commercial Litigation, Class Action/Complex Litigation, Healthcare
Represented a group of five Chinese-Americans who were the purchasers of a pill which contained calcium combined with a oxidized form of Vitamin C. Our clients were class representatives in an Unfair Business Practices
Consumer Legal Remedies class action against a company that advertised extensively in the Chinese-American community regarding the product. The radio, television,
print media advertisements asserted that the product would provide several dozen benefits, including protecting the intelligence, increasing the I.Q.
perfecting the structure of the cerebral tissue of children, healing a herniated disk, curing edema
osteoporosis, providing more energy, healing cartilage, tendons,
muscles, eliminating virtually every ache
pain known to humankind,
not interfering with any prescription drug. All of the claims were false.
The case settled following the first day of trial. Pursuant to the settlement, all consumers were entitled to seek reimbursement of their outlays for the purchase of the product.
CERCLA
RCRA
USDC: Northern District of California & Contra Costa County Superior Court
Plaintiff L
Fill Operator
Environmental, Real Estate
Represented a solid
hazardous waste l
fill against thirty generators
transporters of solid
hazardous wastes in a complex federal CERCLA
RCRA action which was accompanied by a parallel state court action. The l
fill was prevented by the actions of various local governmental entities
waste haulers from raising moneys through its rates to satisfy the Federal
state requirements for posting financial assurances related to its closure
post-closure costs. The action was filed after the EPA
state regulators threatened to file an administrative enforcement action against the l
fill if it did not provide the required financial assurances. The case was politically charged
received a substantial amount of attention in the press.
The case settled,
a $30 million premium was paid for a complex combination of insurance policies which were literally negotiated from scratch
provided the requisite state
federal assurances
funded all closure
past-closure activities for the next 35 years.
Clean Air Act
USDC: Northern District of California
Defendant Circuit Board Manufacturer
Business And Commercial Litigation, Environmental
Represented a local air pollution control district in litigation against the U.S. Army for creating severe air pollution in the Monterey Bay area during the course of alleged remedial activities to remove unexploded ordnance at Ford Ord.
The matter was ultimately settled with the Army agreeing to stringent burn-control procedures.
Proposition 65
Lead
Food
Alameda Superior Court
Defendant Food Manufacturer
Wholesaler
Environmental
Represented a food manufacturer
wholesaler of a unique food product in a matter in which the plaintiff alleged that consumers were exposed to lead from ingestion of the food product.
Successfully demonstrated that the food product was not contaminated with lead from the production process,
the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case.
False Advertising, Unfair Business Practices, Organic, Cosmetics, Natural, Certification, Federal Preemption, FDA, USDA
San Francisco District Court
Defendant French Certifier of Organic Cosmetics
Business And Commercial Litigation
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soups sued Ecocert, a French company that certified natural
organic cosmetic products pursuant to a st
ard approved by the French Government,
numerous cosmetic companies in a complaint that alleged that the cosmetic companies claimed that their products were organic when they allegedly were not. The plaintiff alleged that Ecocert's certification st
ard was misleading although it was publicly available
approved by the French Government. Following numerous attempts to state a valid cause of action, the California Superior Court dismissed the case on the grounds that plaintiff lacked st
ing to bring the claims. The plaintiff thereafter filed a Lanham Act claim in Federal court which made the same types of allegations made in state court. Ecocert's position throughout was that it certified products based on a life-cycle assessment of a firm's cosmetic ingredients,
that it certified products pursuant to a publicly available st
ard, approved by the French Government, which was posted on the web in a multitude of languages, including English.
The state court case was dismissed after the plaintiff was given numerous opportunities to amend its complaint to attempt to state a valid claim, due to its lack of st
ing to bring the claim. In essence, Dr. Bronner was unable to show that it was harmed in any manner that would allow it relief under California State law. In federal court, the case was dismissed as to Ecocert on two grounds: a) Federal preemption (U.S.D.A. administered a national organic program that occupied the regulatory arena),
b) Ecocert
Dr. Bronner were not competitors, as required to state a claim under the Lanham Act. In addressing the publicity that arose from the litigation, RMKB also assisted in helping the public to underst
that plaintiff's goal was to impose its view of what an organic st
ard should upon the rest of the commercial world, a st
ard that did not reflect the views of governmental regulations or most consumers.
Proposition 65, Silicates
Solano County Superior Court
Defendant
Business And Commercial Litigation, Environmental
The allegations involved silicates
we represented the chief scientist
a corporate officer of a biotech start-up accused of ab
oning hazardous wastes at its former research facility.
Following several demurrers to the criminal complaint, the prosecution dismissed all counts against our client.
Proposition 65
1st District Court of Appeal
Defendant Trade Group
Business And Commercial Litigation, Proposition 65, Toxic Tort
Represented a trade group of 15 companies in a Proposition 65 case involving allegations of silicates.
In conjunction with the Attorney General, we obtained a favorable ruling from the Court of Appeals, which rejected an attempt by a private party bounty hunter to intervene. We settled the matter,
a de minimis payment was made to plaintiff.
