Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02019/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02019-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Case No.: 2:19-cv-2019 DJC JDP 

Plaintiff, 

 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTROB BONTA, INTERVENOR’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

Defendant. 

Defendant-Intervenor CERT has moved this Court to dismiss this matter for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 192.) Having reviewed the Parties’ briefings 

and evidence, the Court hereby DENIES this motion. 

 CERT argues there is no “honest and antagonistic assertion of rights” as 

required to satisfy the case or controversy requirement of Article III because 

Defendant’s interests are aligned with Plaintiff’s. While CERT may disagree with how 

Defendant has defended and enforced Proposition 65 (“Prop. 65”), they cannot in all 

seriousness contend that Defendant is colluding with Plaintiff to undermine Prop. 65. 

First, former Attorney Generals Harris and Becerra filed several important, healthprotective Prop. 65 lawsuits during their tenures, and Attorney General Bonta has 

Case 2:19-cv-02019-DJC-JDP Document 242 Filed 08/16/23 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

continued to take enforcement actions concerning acrylamide. Further, the regulation 

enacted by OEHHA in the wake of the CERT v. Starbucks decision concerning 

acrylamides in coffee, which CERT alleges demonstrates Defendant’s “instrumental” 

part in undermining the results of that trial, was due to OEHHA's stated recognition of 

a scientific conclusion that coffee does not post a cancer risk, not collusion. 

Second, Defendant has taken clear steps to defend Prop. 65 in this litigation 

thus far by filing two motions to dismiss and opposing Plaintiff’s motion for a 

preliminary injunction, and has stated his intention to oppose Plaintiff’s forthcoming 

motion for summary judgment including by pursuing expert discovery. CERT’s 

critiques of Defendant’s litigation strategy fall within the realm of prosecutorial 

discretion, and do not evidence Defendant’s abdication of his duty to defend Prop. 

65. Thus, the Court holds that there is an “honest and antagonistic assertion of rights” 

in this litigation. 

CERT also alleges that neither Plaintiff nor Defendant are the real parties in 

interest, arguing Plaintiff sues only in a representational capacity and has suffered no 

injury itself, while Defendant has disavowed enforcement of Prop. 65 with regard to 

acrylamide in food. This matter, however, presents none of the prudential concerns at 

the root of the real party in interest rule. See Pacific Coast Agricultural Export Assoc. 

v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 526 F.2d 1196, 1208 (9th Cir. 1975). Most importantly, it is 

clear that Plaintiff’s members are real parties in interest. (See Decl. Trenton H. Norris 

(ECF No. 26-2) ¶ 10; CERT’s First Mot. Dismiss (ECF No. 8) at 12 (acknowledging that 

“CalChamber has standing to bring this case on behalf of its members” and that at 

least some Cal Chamber members are “real parties in interest in this case”); CERT’s 

Second Mot. Dismiss (ECF No. 192) at 22 (“[T]here can be no doubt that 

CalChamber’s members have commonly and notoriously sold a vast array of 

acrylamide containing products in the State of California without Proposition 65 

warnings.”).) Plaintiff is a bona fide representative of its members which has filed suit 

to protect their financial interests, and the equitable relief Plaintiff seeks will redound 

Case 2:19-cv-02019-DJC-JDP Document 242 Filed 08/16/23 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

to all its members impacted by Prop. 65 labeling requirements for acrylamide in food, 

making it unlikely that Plaintiff’s members will sue subsequently. As such, this suit will 

prevent a multiplicity of suits being filed against Defendant in future, serving 

prudential concerns, and weighing against dismissal. 

Defendant, on the other hand, is the principal enforcer of Prop. 65, making him 

the proper defendant in a suit for prospective injunctive relief. Ass’n des Eleveurs de 

Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937, 943–44 (9th Cir. 2013). This 

Court has previously held Defendant poses a credible threat of prosecution, and 

declines to revisit that finding now. Further, an official-capacity suit against a state 

officer is essentially a suit against the state itself, and a state clearly has an interest in 

defending its own laws. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 26 (1991). Thus, Defendant is 

properly defending the state’s interests in enforcing Prop. 65 and is a real party in 

interest. 

Finally, CERT argues that any case or controversy, if it previously existed, is now 

moot because the State has amended the labelling requirements for acrylamide in 

food such that acrylamide is now identified as a “probable” rather than “known” 

human carcinogen. See 27 Cal. Code Regs. § 25607.2(b). However, as Plaintiff’s 

Second Amended Complaint and the Parties recent Joint Status Report make clear, 

there is still hearty disagreement over whether the updated warning is purely factual 

and uncontroversial. Thus, this case is not moot. 

For these reasons, the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this 

matter and DENIES CERT’s Motion to Dismiss. 

Dated: August 15, 2023 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta 

 THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:19-cv-02019-DJC-JDP Document 242 Filed 08/16/23 Page 3 of 3