Justices Turn Away Corporate Complaints in California Lead-Paint 'Nuisance' Case
Michael Carvin of Jones Day, counsel for Sherwin-Williams, said the cases highlighted runaway tort liability claims by states against companies.
October 15, 2018 at 10:48 AM
4 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied review in a closely watched pair of cases brought by major corporations challenging liability under California nuisance law for their long-ago promotion of lead pigments in house paints.
The cases, ConAgra Grocery Products v. California and Sherwin-Williams v. California, seemed like possible cert grants in part because they raised free speech issues. The companies claimed that California imposed millions of dollars in damages because of their advertising and promotion decades ago.
“The linchpin for imposing this massive liability was petitioners' speech, not their paint,” wrote Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement, counsel of record for ConAgra in the case.
Santa Clara County launched the litigation in 2000, resulting in a $1.15 billion judgment against the companies for endangering the state's residents through exposure to their products, which they promoted as safe as far back as 70 years ago. Last November, California's Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment but limited the abatement costs to homes built before 1951.
The defendants petitioned the California Supreme Court to overrule the decision, but the state's high court declined in a Feb. 14 split decision. Sherwin-Williams and ConAgra also backed a ballot initiative for this fall, a political move that two California counties tried to stop with a petition for writ of mandate before the California Supreme Court. The companies later dropped the proposal, which would have asked taxpayers for more than $2 billion.
Michael Carvin of Jones Day, counsel for Sherwin-Williams, said the cases highlighted runaway tort liability claims by states against companies. “They are seeking to invent tort liability for companies that are producing products that for whatever reason they don't like—fossil fuels, prescription drugs, guns and things like that,” Carvin said in a news conference last month. “They've designed tort liability theories to go after them in a way that avoids normal statutes of limitations and all kinds of normal tort defenses.”
Sherwin-Williams said in a statement Monday:
“While we are disappointed, the Supreme Court reviews very few cases. Its decision not to review is not a ruling on the merits of the important constitutional issues raised by defendants. California's decision is an outlier and at odds with courts across the country which have correctly held that companies should not be held retroactively liable for lawful conduct and truthful commercial speech decades after they took place.”
A U.S. Chamber of Commerce brief on behalf of the companies also stated: “Just in the last twelve months, in federal courts alone, at least 80 new public nuisance cases of this sort have been filed by states and other government entities against American businesses, all seeking to impose sweeping liability based on similarly novel theories.” The brief also said: “The recent avalanche of public nuisance claims under the new California doctrine will bury American business in even greater litigation costs and burdens.” King & Spalding's Jeffrey Bucholtz is counsel of record in the brief.
Michael Rubin of Altshuler Berzon, lawyer for 10 California county counsel and city attorneys, told the high court that “petitioners' alarmist predictions about the future of public-nuisance litigation are also overblown, as the lower courts conscientiously applied long-standing public nuisance statutes that codified common law principles dating back centuries.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250