throbber
E-FILED
`9/30/2016
`FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
`By: C. Cogburn, Deputy
`
`KAMALA D. HARRIS
`Attorney General of California
`SUSAN S. FIERING
`Supervising Deputy Attorney General
`State Bar No. 121621
`DENNIS A. RAGEN
`Deputy Attorney General
`State Bar No. 106468
`LAURA J. ZUCKERMAN
`Deputy Attorney General
`State Bar No. 161896
`HEATHER C. LESLIE
`Deputy Attorney General
`State Bar No. 305095
`1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
`PO. Box 70550
`Oakland, CA 94612-0550
`Telephone: (510) 879-1299
`Fax: (510) 622-2270
`E-mail: Laura.Zuckerman@d0j.ca.gov
`Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents Office of
`Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Dr.
`Lauren Zeise, Acting Director
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
`
`Case No. 16CECG00183
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`OEHHA AND DR. ZEISE’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`ON MONSANTO’S FIRST AMENDED
`PETITION AND COMPLAINT AND
`CALIFORNIA CITRUS MUTUAL ET
`AL.’S COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
`December 9, 2016
`Date:
`10:00 am.
`Time:
`403
`Dept:
`Hon. Kristi Culver Kapetan
`Judge:
`None set.
`Trial Date:
`Action Filed: January 21, 2016
`
`MONSANTO COMPANY,
`Plaintiff and Petitioner,
`
`and
`CALIFORNIA CITRUS MUTUAL, ET AL.
`Plaintiff-Intervenors,
`
`OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
`HAZARD ASSESSMENT, ET AL.,
`Defendants and
`Respondents,
`
`and
`SIERRA CLUB, ET AL.; CENTER FOR FOOD
`SAFETY,
`
`Defendant-Intervenors,
`
`OEHHA’S Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of M01. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECG00183)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .......... 1
`
`1
`
`INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND .............................................................. 2
`PROPOSITION 65 ....................................................................................................... 2
`A Step One: OEHHA’s Obligation to List. ................................................... 3
`Step Two: Discharge and Warning Requirements. .................................... 4
`B.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 5
`THIRTY YEARS OF COURT REVIEW OF THE LABOR CODE LISTING
`MECHANISM ............................................................................................................. 5
`HISTORY OF THE CURRENT LITIGATION ................................................................... 6
`THE INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER .................................... 6
`The Monograph Process ................................................. 7
`A‘
`Reliance on IARC by Other Government Entities. ..................................... 9
`B.
`Reliance on IARC by Courts and Industry. ............................................. 11
`C.
`STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 12
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 13
`THE LABOR CODE LISTING MECHANISM IS NOT AN IMPERMISSIBLE
`DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
`CONSTITUTION. ...................................................................................................... 14
`Proposition 65 Does Not Delegate Fundamental Policy Decisions“.
`A4
`“ 16
`Proposition 65 Does Not Grant Rulemaking Authority ............................ 17
`B.
`Any Delegation of Authority is Accompanied by Adequate
`C.
`Safeguards and Direction. ....................................................................... 19
`IARC has robust internal safeguards in place. .............................. 19
`1.
`IARC has a built-in motivation to act responsibly ........................ 21
`2
`Proposition 65 imposes adequate standards for the listing. .......... 22
`3.
`The voters added safeguards to Proposition 65 to enable
`4
`companies like Monsanto to prove that chemicals listed by
`IARC do not pose a significant risk of cancer in humans ............. 22
`THE LABOR CODE LISTING MECHANISM DOES NOT VIOLATE PROCEDURAL
`DUE PROCESS ......................................................................................................... 24
`The Decision to List a Chemical is a Quasi-Legislative Action That
`A‘
`is Not Subject to Federal or State Constitutional Due Process
`Review ....................................................................................................... 25
`Even if Due Process Analysis Were Warranted, OEHHA’s Listing
`of Glyphosate Would Not Violate the Federal or State
`Constitutions’ Guarantees of Procedural Due Process .............................. 26
`
`I.
`
`I.
`
`1].
`
`III.
`
`I.
`
`I].
`
`B.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`~
`
`OEHHA’s Memo. ofPoints and Aulh. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIR3)
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`1‘
`
`2.
`
`2‘
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Monsanto has not been deprived of a constitutionally-
`protected interest under federal or state law. ................................ 26
`Monsanto has the right to raise its scientific arguments in
`court ............................................................................................... 28
`THE LABOR CODE LISTING MECHANISM OF PROPOSITION 65 DOES NOT
`VIOLATE ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE STATE 0R FEDERAL
`CONSTITUTIONS. .................................................................................................... 29
`The Labor Code Listing Mechanism Does Not Constitutc an
`A.
`Unlawful Amendment to or Revision of the California Constitution ....... 29
`The Labor Code Listing Mechanism Does Not Violate Article II,
`Section 12, of the California Constitution. ............................................... 30
`IARC is not a private corporation. ................................................ 30
`l.
`The Labor Code listing mechanism does not confer any
`power, duty, or function on IARC. .............................................. 32
`The Labor Code listing mechanism incorporates a decision
`by the Legislature to identify IARC .............................................. 33
`The Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution Has No
`Application to the Operation of the Labor Code Listing Mechanism ....... 33
`Neither the Labor Code Listing Mechanism nor the Anticipated
`Listing of Glyphosatc Would Violate Monsanto’s Right to Free
`Speech Under the California or US. Constitutions.
`34
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 35
`
`III.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIS3)
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`420 Caregivers, LLC v. City ofLox Angeles
`(2012) 219 Ca1.App.4th 1316 ............................................................................................. 13, 27
`Adams v. Cooper Industries
`(ED. Ky. Apr. 4, 2007, No. 03-476-JBC) 2007 WL 1075647 ................................................. 11
`AFL-CIO v. Deukmejian
`(1989) 212 Ca1.App.3d 425 ............................................................................................. passim
`
`American Manufacturers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Sullivan
`(1999) 526 U.S. 40 ........................................................................................................ 26, 27, 28
`
`Arcadia Unified School Dist. v. State Dept. of Education
`(1992) 2 Cal.4th 251 ................................................................................................................. 12
`
`Associated Builders v. Brock
`(3d Cir. 1988) 862 F.2d 63 .................................................................................................. 18, 23
`
`Baker v. Carr
`(1962) 369 US 186 .................................................................................................................. 33
`Baldonado v. Wyeth
`(ND. 111. Aug. 31, 2012, No.04 C 4312), 2012 WL 3779100 ................................................. 11
`Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Denton
`(2004) 120 Ca1.App.4th 333 ................................................................................... 11, 22, 28, 34
`Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of Supervisors
`(1971) 20 Cal.App.3d1 ....................................................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Beck Development (20., Inc. v. Southern Pacific Tramp. C0.
`(1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1160 ..................................................................................................... 25
`Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Mgmt., LLC
`(2013) 58 Cal.4th 329 ............................................................................................................... 35
`
`Bi-Metallic lnv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization
`(1915) 239 U.S.441 .................................................................................................................. 25
`Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
`(1972) 408 U.S. 564 .................................................................................................................. 27
`Cal. Gillnetters Assn. v. Department of Fish & Game
`(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1145 ............................................................................................... 25, 33
`
`OEHHA’s Memo. ofPoints and Aulh. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIS3)
`
`iii
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian
`(1989) 48 Ca1.3d 805 ............................................................................................. 13, 30, 31, 32
`California Assn. of Retail T obacconists v. State of California
`(2003) 109 Ca1.App.4th 792 ..................................................................................................... 31
`California Chamber of Commerce v. Brown
`(2011) 196 Ca1.App.4th 233 ....................................................................................................... 5
`Canon Mobilehome Park Ownerx ' Axsn. v. City of Carmn
`(1983) 35 Ca1.3d184 ............................................................................................................... 15
`
`Current v. Atochem
`(W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2001, No. W-OO-CA-332) 2001 WL 36101283 ...................................... 11
`Exxon Mnbil Corp. v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard A‘sus'exsment
`(2009) 169 Ca1.App.4th 1264 ......................................................................................... 3, 25, 28
`In re Guardianship of Ann S.
`(2009) 45 Cal.4th 1110 ....................................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`In re Taylor
`(2015) 60 Cal.4th 1019 ............................................................................................................. 12
`
`Ingredient Communication Council v. Lungren
`(1992) 2 Ca1.App.4th 1480 ....................................................................................................... 23
`Jackson Court Condominiums, Inc. v. City of New Orleans
`(5th Cir. 1989) 874 F.2d 1070 ................................................................................................... 25
`
`Kasky v. Nike, Inc.
`(2002) 27 Cal.4th 939 ............................................................................................................... 35
`
`King v. Meese
`(1987) 43 Cal.3d 1217 .............................................................................................................. 17
`
`Kugler v. Yocum
`(1968) 69 Ca1.2d 371 ........................................................................................................ passim
`Lax Lomax Land Co., LLC v. City QfLosAngeles
`(2009) 177 Ca1.App.4th 837 ..................................................................................................... 28
`Lujan v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
`(2001) 532 U.S. 189 .................................................................................................................. 29
`
`iV
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIR3)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Lungren v. Superior Court
`(1996) 14 Cal.4th 294 ............................................................................................................... 16
`
`Martin v. Cty. of Contra Coxta
`(1970) 8 Ca1.App.3d 856 ........................................................................................................... 17
`Mathews v. Eldridge
`(1976) 424 U.S. 319 .................................................................................................................. 26
`
`Minnesota State 301. for Community Colleges v. Knight
`(1984) 465 US. 271 .................................................................................................................. 26
`Minor v. Happersett
`(1874), 88 U.S. 162 ................................................................................................................... 33
`
`Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Cnastal Commixsion
`(1982) 33 Cal.3d 158 ................................................................................................................ 34
`Pala Band of Mission Indians v. Bd. of Supervisors
`(1997) 54 Ca1.App.4th 565 ................................................................................................. 13, 30
`
`Paul v. Davis
`(1976) 424 US. 693 .................................................................................................................. 27
`People ex rel. Younger v. County ofEl Dorado
`(1971) 5 Ca1.3d. 480 ........................................................................................................... 14, 17
`Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materialx, Inc.
`(La.Ct.App. 2014) 168 So.3d 556 ............................................................................................. 11
`Ryan v. California Interscholastic Fed ’n - San Diego Section
`(2001) 94 Ca1.App.4th 1048 ..................................................................................................... 27
`
`Salerno v. US.
`(1987) 481 US 739 .................................................................................................................. 13
`State v. Wakeen
`(1953) 263 Wis. 401 ...................................................................................................... 17, 18, 32
`Stevenson Real Estate Services, Inc. v. CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Services
`(2006) 138 Ca1.App.4th 1215 ................................................................................................... 12
`Styrene Information and Research Center v. OEHHA
`(2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1082 ............................................................................................... 5, 22
`
`V
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIR3)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`T.H. v. San Diego Unified School District
`(2004) 122 Ca1.App.4th 1267 ................................................................................................... 12
`Tobe v. City of Santa Ana
`(1995) 9 Ca1.4th 1069 ................................................................................................... 12, 13, 14
`
`Today 3' Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Ed.
`(2013) 57 Cal.4th 197 ............................................................................................................... 12
`United Beverage C0. of S. Bend v. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Comm ’11
`(7th Cir. 1985) 760 F.2d 155 ..................................................................................................... 14
`W. Oil & Gas Ass ’11 v. Air Res. Bd.
`(1984) 37 Ca1.3d 502 ................................................................................................................ 25
`W. Reserve Oil & Gas Co. v. New
`(9th Cir. 1985) 765 F.2d 1428 ................................................................................................... 27
`
`Warren v. Marion County
`(1960) .................................................................................................................................. 20, 23
`
`Wheeler v. Gregg
`(1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 348 ......................................................................................................... 18
`Wilke & Holzheiser, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
`(1966) 65 Ca1.2d 349 .............................................................................................. 19, 20, 21, 24
`
`Wilkinson v. Madera Community Hospital
`(1983) 144 Ca1.App.3d 436 ....................................................................................................... 19
`
`Williams v. City of San Carlos
`(1965) 233 Ca1.App.2d 290 ....................................................................................................... 34
`
`Williams v. Monsanto Co.
`(ED. La. Feb. 20, 1997, No. 93-4237) 1997 WL 73565 .......................................................... 11
`WMX Tech, Inc. v. Miller
`(9th Cir. 1999) 197 F.3d 367 ..................................................................................................... 27
`
`Zauderer v. Office afDisczPlinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio
`(1985) 471 US. 626 .................................................................................................................. 35
`
`vi
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIR3)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`STATE STATUTES
`Code of Civil Procedure
`§438(c)(1)(B)(ii) .................................................................................................................. 1,12
`
`has
`
`Corporations Code, Title 1, Division 1
`§ 100 .......................................................................................................................................... 31
`§ 102 .......................................................................................................................................... 31
`§ 162 ......
`<3 171 .......................................................................................................................................... 31
`
`Corporations Code, Title 1, Division 1.5
`§ 2500 ........................................................................................................................................ 31
`§ 2509 ........................................................................................................................................ 31
`
`Corporations Code, Title 1, Division 2
`§ 5003 ........................................................................................................................................ 31
`§§ 5052-5059 ............................................................................................................................ 31
`§ 5110 ........................................................................................................................................ 31
`§§ 14600-601 ............................................................................................................................ 31
`Corporations Code, Title 1, Division 3
`§§ 12000 et seq. ........................................................................................................................ 31
`§ 13404 ...................................................................................................................................... 31
`Education Code
`§ 32062(a) ................................................................................................................................. 10
`§ 32062(b) ................................................................................................................................. 10
`Health and Safety Code
`§ 24259.9(b) ................................................................................................................................ 5
`§ 25249.5 ......................................................................................................................... 1, 2, 3, 4
`§ 25249.6 ................................................................................................................................. 3, 4
`§25249.8(a)
`..passim
`§ 25249.8(b) ................................................................................................................................ 3
`§ 25249.9 ..................................................................................................................................... 3
`§25249.9(a)
`.....4
`§ 25249410 ................................................................................................................................... 3
`§ 25249.10(b) .............................................................................................................................. 4
`5, 22, 34
`§25249.10(c) ......
`§111791.5(b)(2) ....................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Labor Code
`§6382 ...................................................................................................................... 10, 26, 33, 34
`§ 6382(b)(1) .................................................................................................................... 4, 10, 33
`
`vii
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIR3)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Penal Code
`§374.8(c)(2)(D) ........................................................................................................................ 10
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`22 United States Code
`§ 2906-1 ................................................................................................................................. 7, 19
`STATE REGULATIONS
`California Code of Regulations, Title 27
`§ 25306(m)(1) ..................................................................................................................... 10, 21
`§ 25701 ...................................................................................................................................... 23
`§ 25703 ...................................................................................................................................... 23
`.5, 23
`§25703(b) “
`§ 25904 ........................................................................................................................................ 4
`§ 25904(b) ........................................................................................................................... 15, 22
`§ 69401.2(b)(7) ................................................................................................................... 10, 21
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`29 Code of Federal Regulations.
`§ 1910,1200 Appendix F ............................................................................................................. 9
`40 Code of Federal Regulations
`§ 707.60(c)(2)(ii) ......................................................................................................................... 9
`CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`
`California Constitition, Article I
`§ 2(a) ......................................................................................................................................... 35
`
`California Constitution, Article I]
`§ 12 ........................................................................................................................... 30,31,32, 33
`California Constitution, Article IV
`§ 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 29, 30
`UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`United States Constitution, Amendment 5 ...................................................................................... 27
`United States Constitution, Amendment 14 .................................................................................... 27
`United States Constitution, Article IV, § 4 ..................................................................................... 33
`
`viii
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIS3)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`IARC’s Statute, Rules, and Regulations, Fourteenth Edition
`Article I ...................................................................................................................................... 7
`Afiicle 111......
`Afiicle V .......
`Article VI
`Article VII] ........................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Proposition 65 Ballot Pamphlet, Proposed Law, § 1, p. 53 .................................................. 2, 16, 21
`New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 8:59-9.3( b)( 7) .................................................................. 10
`Massachusetts General Laws Ann. lllF
`§ 4(b)(2) .................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Massachusetts Regulations, Title 105
`§ 670.010(B)(1) ......................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Pennsylvania Administrative Code, Title 34
`§323.5(a)(6) .............................................................................................................................. 10
`
`Pennsylvania Statutes, Title 35
`§ 7303(a)(6) ............................................................................................................................... 10
`Rhode Island General Laws, Title 28
`§28—21-2(13) ............................................................................................................................ 11
`
`ix
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIS3)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Pursuant to Section 438, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(ii), 0f the Code of Civil Procedure,
`Defendants Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Dr. Lauren Zeise, Acting
`Director (jointly, “OEHHA”) submit the following memorandum of points and authorities in
`support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings on the First Amended Petition for Writ of
`Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (“Amended Petition”) filed by Plaintiff Monsanto
`Company (“Monsanto”) and on the Complaint in Intervention filed by Plaintiff-Intervenors
`California Citrus Mutual et a]. (the “Citrus Mutual Intervenors”).I
`INTRODUCTION
`Thirty years ago, the voters of the State of California adopted Proposition 65, the Safe
`Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of1986 (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.5 et seq.).
`Proposition 65 requires the State to list chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity,
`and requires businesses to warn consumers before exposing them to the listed chemicals.
`Monsanto now files this six-part constitutional challenge to one of the fundamental provisions of
`the Act 7 the Labor Code Listing mechanism contained in section 25249.8, subdivision (a) 7
`which was the first of the statute’s four listing mechanisms to be used, has been interpreted by
`three Courts of Appeal, and has been used to list nearly 100 chemicals over the last 29 years.
`While Monsanto tries to position its challenge to the Labor Code listing mechanism as an as-
`applied challenge to the proposed listing of a single chemical, glyphosate, as this Court has
`
`already recognized, the lawsuit is a broad facial challenge to the constitutionality of the entire
`Labor Code listing mechanism. If successful, Monsanto’s challenge will upset three decades of
`settled law under Proposition 65, and potentially call into question the constitutionality of a
`
`multitude of additional federal and state laws.
`At the core of Monsanto’s argument is the claim that, by relying on scientific evaluation
`and classification of carcinogens made by the United Nations" International Agency for Research
`
`I As the California Citrus Mutual Complaint in Intervention merely adopts Monsanto’s
`claims, raising no additional claims or causes of action, OEHHA addresses the arguments set
`forth in Monsanto’s First Amended Petition without separately referencing the Complaint in
`Intervention. OEHHA’s arguments and this brief, however, apply to both pleadings.
`
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Headings (No. 16CECG00183)
`
`1
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`on Cancer (“IARC”), the Labor Code listing mechanism impermissibly delegates legislative
`authority to a non-elected body. This argument fails for multiple reasons. Most importantly, the
`Labor Code listing mechanism does not empower IARC to do anything, much less legislate: it
`merely provides a mechanism by which OEHHA can make the most of its scarce resources by
`relying on specific scientific determinations made by an expert agency, in a process that the
`voters explicitly considered and approved and that contains a number of effective safeguards.
`IARC’s scientific determinations are the gold standard in carcinogen identification, and its
`classifications are relied on by the United States and multiple states and countries. As the
`California Supreme Court noted in Kugler v. Yocum (1968) 69 Ca1.2d 371, there is simply no
`delegation of legislative power when a statute merely relies on an existingr authoritative source to
`exercise its independent authority to determine a technical factual issue. (Id. at p. 379, fn.6.)
`“Nor does the fact that a third party, whether private or governmental, performs some role in the
`application and implementation of an established legislative scheme render the legislation invalid
`
`as an unlawful delegation.” (Id. at pp. 379-380.)
`Finally, to the extent that Monsanto employs other constitutional theories to challenge the
`Labor Code listing mechanism, these claims are either derivative of the flawed impermissible-
`delegation claim, or are meritless for independent reasons. Thus, for the reasons set forth below,
`Defendants request that this Court grant judgment to OEHHA, and dismiss Monsanto’s Amended
`Petition and the Citrus Mutual Complaint in Intervention with prejudice.
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`PROPOSITION 65
`Proposition 65 (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.5 et seq.)2 is a right-to-know statute adopted
`by initiative that was intended to protect public health and the environment. In enacting
`Proposition 65, the voters found that “hazardous chemicals pose a significant threat to their health
`and well-being,” and that “state government agencies have failed to provide them with adequate
`protection.” (Proposition 65 Ballot Pamphlet, Proposed Law, § 1, p. 53, attached as Exh. A to
`
`I.
`
`2 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Headings (No. 16CECG00183)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`OEHHA’s Request for Judicial Notice 1 [“RJN”].) Reflecting the voters’ “dissatisfaction with
`the state’s efforts at protecting the people and their water supply from exposure to hazardous
`chemicals” under preexisting law (AFL-CIO v. Deukmejian (1989) 212 Ca1.App.3d 425, 441
`[Deukmejian]), Proposition

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket