Legal Opinion
Charles v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc.
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Decided May 9, 2018No. B275295Published
1Opinion of the CourtEpstein, P. J.
*516Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of dismissal based on the sustaining of a demurrer to their putative class action complaint under the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. ( Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.5 et seq. (Proposition 65 or the Act).) This appeal challenges the Proposition 65 warning provided by defendants for wines that contain purportedly unsafe levels of inorganic arsenic, a chemical identified by the State of California as a carcinogen and reproductive toxicant (listed chemical).
It is undisputed that defendants provided the so-called "safe harbor"…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.California Supreme Court · 1968
- Richards v. Jefferson CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- City of Atascadero v. Merill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- Villacres v. Abm Industries Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.