Earlier this month, a federal district court in California certified a class claiming economic injury caused by alleged misrepresentations regarding pet food ingredients.  The class alleges that the pet food advertises its ingredients as healthful when in fact the products contained allegedly harmful chemicals, including PFAS. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, Causation, Class Actions, Damages, PFAS, Standing

In a precedential decision, the Ninth Circuit recently modified its approach to mandatory injunctive relief in Endangered Species Act (ESA) cases involving multiple species.  The court, in San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper et al. v. County of San Luis Obispo, No. 24-7807 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2025), held that “when mandatory injunctive relief under the ESA may benefit one protected species at the expense of other protected species, a court must consider competing equities and the public interest as to those other species.” Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, Endangered Species Act, Ninth Circuit, Public Lands, Water, Water Use

On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court issued it opinion in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, holding fuel producers had standing—and had specifically demonstrated redressability—to challenge California-specific regulations EPA approved under the Clean Air Act.  The Court’s opinion  reversing and remanding to the D.C. Circuit left the merits of the case for another day, but acknowledged that the regulations at issue may be rescinded shortly, mooting most, if not all, of the parties’ controversy. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Agency Action, Air, California, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, D.C. Circuit, Emissions, EPA, Federal Procedure, Greenhouse Gas, Legislation, Oil and Gas, Standing, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court

On May 1, 2025, the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of California evaluated a settlement agreement between a long-time generator of hazardous substances, an innocent plaintiff, and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), and found that it met the requirements as a good faith agreement under both the California Code of Civil Procedure and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).  See Maxim L Properties v. Moyer Products, Ind., 2025 WL 1261419.  The court ruled that a settlement agreement that, among other things, accounts for the “rough approximation” of liability is generally satisfactory in both California and under CERCLA. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Allocation, California, Certification, Cleanup, Consent Decree, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Good Faith Settlement, Potentially Responsible Parties, Remediation, Superfund

In a recent case from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, two plaintiffs alleged that Danone Waters of America, LLC (“Danone”) violated Illinois and California state statutes by labeling Evian spring water “natural” despite the presence of microplastics which leach from the plastic bottles into the water.  Daly v. Danone Waters of America, LLC, 2024 WL 4679086 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2024).  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, Citizens Suit, Greenwashing, Illinois, Preemption

On April 26, 2023, the United States Court of Federal Claims ordered the federal government to reimburse Shell U.S.A. and several other oil companies for all cleanup costs, including interest, associated with the cleanup of aviation gas (“avgas”) at a site polluted during World War II efforts. Shell U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. United States, 2023 WL 3090659 at *10 (Fed. Cl. 2023). This was the third such case in which the oil companies were seeking contractual indemnification for costs pursuant to the Contract Settlement Act and the only issue of significance addressed by the Court was whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to recover statutory interest that they previously paid under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). Ultimately, the Court held that the plain reading of CERCLA includes interest as a “charge,” and the government was not immune from paying those costs.  Id. at *8. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Court of Federal Claims, Damages, Indemnification, Sovereign Immunity, Superfund

Last month we reported on Curtis v. 7-Eleven, in which the Northern District of Illinois held that marking products as “recyclable” when they may not, as a practical matter, be recycled did not constitute consumer fraud because the fact that the material is capable of being recycled is not false or misleading.  This month, the Northern District of California came to the same conclusion.  In David Swartz, et al., v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al., No. 21-cv-04643 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2022), the Honorable James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss claims brought against defendants Coca-Cola, Blue Triton Brands, and Niagara Bottling (collectively the “Defendants”) by plaintiff individuals and Sierra Club (“Plaintiffs”).  Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, and that such violations constitute fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation.  Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the “100% recyclable” labels on single-use plastic bottles supplied by the Defendants were false and misleading because most plastic bottles are not recycled and instead end up in landfills or incinerators due to a lack of recycling capacity and a lack of demand for recycled plastics.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, Greenwashing, Procedure, Waste

In Citizens Development Corporation, Inc. v. County of San Diego, et al., No. 12-CV-334-GPC-KSC, 2022 WL 4374957 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2022), the Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted three Motions for Good Faith Settlement Determination in an action under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) related to alleged contamination of surface water and groundwater in and around Lake San Marcos and San Marcos Creek located in San Marcos, California.  One day later, in Maxim I Properties v. A.M. Bud Krohn, et al., No. 12-cv-00449-DMR, 2022 WL 4390433 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2022), the Honorable Donna M. Ryu of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order denying a Motion for Good Faith Settlement filed by Maxim I Properties (“Maxim”) and defendant Moyer Products (“Moyer”) in a matter concerning contamination at a property in San Jose, California.  As such settlements can provide contribution protection to parties potentially liable for clean up, these two cases provide good insight into the factors courts will consider in determining whether to approve them.      Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Good Faith Settlement, Potentially Responsible Parties, Superfund

In Rio Linda Elverta Cmty. Water Dist. v. United States, No. 2:17-CV-01349, 2022 WL 3567143 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2022), the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, dismissed  two California water utilities’ federal and state law claims against the federal government and several private sector defendants relating to hexavalent chromium (“Cr6”) pollution at the former McClellan Air Force Base (“Base”) near Sacramento, California.  The water utilities allege that during active operations of the Base, the federal government used products containing Cr6, which contaminated the groundwater aquifer from which the water utilities derive municipal drinking water, making it unsafe for human consumption.  Much of the case turned on the interplay between CERCLA sections 104 and 113(h) in the context of a clean up of a federal facility. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, CERCLA, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Drinking Water, Federal Facilities, Groundwater, Negligence, Nuisance, RCRA, Remediation, Removal, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Superfund, Trespass

Stanford University can proceed with its lawsuit against HP Inc. and Agilent Technologies, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on September 19, 2022, holding that because certain soil contamination was a “continuous” or abatable nuisance or trespass, Stanford’s nuisance and trespass claims were not time barred and could continue.  Accordingly, the court denied HP and Agilent’s motion for summary judgment on Stanford’s nuisance and trespass claims. Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., No. 18-cv-01199 (N.D. Ca. Sept. 19, 2022). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, CERCLA, Contamination, Discovery Rule, Nuisance, PCBs, Solvents, Statute of Limitations, Superfund, Trespass