Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Ass'n v. Allenby

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

December 12, 1991, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California ; March 11, 1992, Filed

No. 90-16485

Opinion

 [*942]  OPINION

HUG, Circuit Judge:

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, Inc. ("CSMA") filed this action below seeking a declaratory judgment that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA"), 7 U.S.C. §§ 136-136y (1988), and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act ("FHSA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1261-1277 (1988), preempt Proposition 65 warning requirements. The State of California filed an opposition. The district court found that no genuine issues of material fact existed, and entered a Memorandum-Decision and Order on September 11, 1990, granting the State of California's motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed and we affirm.

I. FACTS

CSMA is a national trade association of insecticide,  [**2]  disinfectant, and antimicrobial product manufacturers who sell their products to consumer, institutional, and industrial users. Many of the products manufactured by CSMA members are regulated under either FIFRA or FHSA. Both FIFRA and FHSA have express preemption provisions that prohibit certain types of state regulation, including labeling requirements on products regulated under the Acts.

The California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 ("Proposition 65") requires California to list substances that it determines to be carcinogenic or reproductively toxic. Twelve months after a substance has been listed by the state, the manufacturers of products containing the listed substances must provide adequate warnings to the consuming public that their products pose a health risk. CSMA contends that the adequate warning requirements of Proposition 65, as applied to products regulated under FIFRA and FHSA, are preempted by these Acts.

 [*943]  II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

958 F.2d 941 *; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 3808 **; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2068; 22 ELR 20822; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P13,142; 34 ERC (BNA) 2000

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clifford L. Allenby; John K. Van De Kamp, Esq., Defendants-Appellees.

Prior History:  [**1]  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. CV-90-00211-FMS. Fern M. Smith, District Judge, Presiding.

CORE TERMS

labeling, warnings, manufacturers, preempted, preemption, pesticide, regulated, products, point-of-sale, signs, chemical, labeling requirement, consumer, hazard, state law, cautionary, suits, reproductive, notices, argues, product liability, cause cancer, purpose of congress, misbranding, containers, packaging, reasons, user

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Judgments, Summary Judgment, General Overview, Governments, State & Territorial Governments, Relations With Governments, Transportation Law, Interstate Commerce, Federal Powers, Federal Government, US Congress, Business & Corporate Compliance, Environmental Law, Hazardous Wastes & Toxic Substances, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act, Agriculture & Food, Pesticides, Environmental Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Child Pornography, Employing Minor to Engage in Child Pornography, Elements