No. __-_____
`
`
`
`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`
`
`
`HOTZE HEALTH WELLNESS CENTER INTERNATIONAL
`ONE, LLC, PHYSICIAN’S PREFERENCE INTERNATIONAL,
`LP, BRAIDWOOD MANAGEMENT, INC., PARADIGM
`HOLDINGS, LLC, AND DR. STEVEN HOTZE,
`
`PETITIONERS,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER, INC.,
`
`RESPONDENT.
`
`
`
`On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LAURIE L. YORK
`
`Counsel of Record
`Laurie L. York Law Office
`6633 Oasis Dr.
`Austin, TX 78749
`(512) 301-3777
`lauriey23@yahoo.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`

`

`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`This Court has recently sought to define when 28
`U.S.C. § 1447(c)-(d) preclude appeals from remand
`orders. Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S.
`635, 640 (2009); Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy
`Servs., 551 U.S. 224 (2007); BP P.L.C. v. Mayor of
`Baltimore, 141 S.Ct. 1532 (2021). The lower courts
`and parties need more clarity than these cases give.
`Petitioners removed a “Proposition 65” bounty-
`hunter suit from state to federal court, premising the
`removal in part on supplemental jurisdiction to avoid
`the state’s noncitizen status for diversity purposes.
`Moreover, under the terms of the bounty-hunter law
`and its own constitutional injury, the plaintiff has
`prudential third-party standing—a nonjurisdictional
`issue that § 1447(c) requires plaintiffs to raise within
`30 days of removal or waive—that should be
`appealable as nonjurisdictional like exercises of
`jurisdictional discretion under Carlsbad. With these
`prudential and discretionary issues falling outside §
`1447(d)’s bar of appellate review, but nonetheless
`sounding “jurisdictional,” the Powerex framework of
`barring appeals when the rationale for remand is
`“colorably
`characterized
`as
`subject-matter
`jurisdiction” is too vague to guide courts and parties.
`Petitioners raised discretionary and prudential
`arguments against remand, but the district court
`remanded and awarded attorney fees as “actual
`expenses” under § 1447(c), with no evidence or claim
`that the bounty hunter actually paid its counsel. The
`Ninth Circuit affirmed and found the appeal frivolous.
`The questions presented are:
`(1) Whether the appeal was frivolous.
`(2) Whether the remand and fee order was proper.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
`Petitioners
`are
`Physician’s
`Preference
`International, LP, Hotze Health & Wellness Center
`International One, L.L.C., Braidwood Management,
`Inc., Paradigm Holdings, LLC, and Dr. Steven Hotze,
`state-court defendants that removed to the district
`court and appealed to the court of appeals.
`Respondent is Environmental Research Center,
`Inc., the plaintiff in the district court and the appellee
`in the court of appeals.
`
`RULE 29.6 STATEMENT
`Petitioners Physician’s Preference International,
`LP, Hotze Health & Wellness Center International
`One, L.L.C., Paradigm Holdings, LLC, and Braidwood
`Management, Inc., have no parent companies, and no
`publicly held company owns any of their stock.
`
`RELATED CASES
`The following cases relate directly to this case for
`purposes of this Court’s Rule 14.1(b)(iii):
`• Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness
`Ctr. Int’l One, L.L.C., No. RG18914802 (Alameda
`Cty. Super. Ct.). Filed July 30, 2018, removed
`Sept. 10, 2018, remanded Jan. 4, 2019; removed
`Jan. 16, 2020; remanded May 26, 2020; dismissed
`in part Sept. 2, 2021; appellate review sought Oct.
`12, 2021; pending.
`• Physician's Preference Int’l, LP v. Superior Court
`for the County of Alameda, No. A163647 (Cal. Ct.
`App.). Filed Oct. 12, 2021; pending.
`• Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness
`Ctr. Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 3:18-cv-05538-VC (N.D.
`Cal.). Ordered remanded Dec. 21, 2018, appealed
`Dec. 25, 2018, remanded Dec. 27, 2018.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`•
`
`• Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness
`Ctr. Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 18-17463 (9th Cir.).
`Dismissed Mar. 21, 2019; motion to reconsider en
`banc filed Apr. 4, 2019, and denied Sept. 10, 2019;
`mandate issued Sept. 18, 2019.
`In re Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr. Int’l One,
`L.L.C., No. 19-238 (U.S.) Petition for writ of
`mandamus denied Nov. 4, 2019.
`• Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness
`Ctr. Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 19-1005 (U.S.). Petition
`for certiorari filed Feb. 06, 2020; denied Mar. 23,
`2020; petition for rehearing filed Apr. 17, 2020;
`denied May 18, 2020.
`• Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness
`Ctr. Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 3:20-cv-0370-SK (N.D.
`Cal.). Ordered remanded May 20, 2020, operative
`(amended) notice of appeal filed May 27, 2020;
`remanded May 26, 2020.
`• Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness
`Ctr. Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 20-15457 (9th Cir.).
`Dismissed in part July 28, 2020; motion to
`reconsider en banc filed Aug. 11, 2020, and denied
`Jan. 12, 2021; memorandum issued June 17, 2021;
`mandate issued July 9, 2020; order for briefing on
`attorney-fee award June 21, 2021; pending as to
`attorney-fee award.
`• Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr. Int’l One, LLC v.
`Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc., No. 18A1222 (U.S.).
`Deadline to petition extended to May 28, 2019.
`• Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr. Int’l One, LLC v.
`Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc., No. 19A605 (U.S.). Deadline
`to petition extended to Feb. 7, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Questions Presented .................................................. ii
`Parties to the Proceeding .......................................... iii
`Rule 29.6 Statement .................................................. iii
`Related Cases ............................................................ iii
`Appendix ................................................................... vii
`Table of Authorities ................................................... ix
`Petition for Writ of Certiorari .................................... 1
`Opinions Below ........................................................... 1
`Jurisdiction ................................................................. 2
`Statutory Provisions Involved ................................... 2
`Statement of the Case ................................................ 3
`The Underlying “Proposition 65” Action ............. 4
`PPILP’s Removal to Federal Court ..................... 6
`Paradigm’s Removal to Federal Court ................ 8
`Appeal to the Ninth Circuit ................................. 9
`Reasons to Grant the Writ ....................................... 10
`I. The remand was improper. ............................... 12
`A. Standing did not provide a basis for
`remand. ........................................................ 12
`1. An Article III case or controversy
`exists here. ............................................ 13
`2. As a purchaser-tester, ERC has
`tester standing under Havens Realty. .. 14
`3. Private enforcers like ERC have
`assignee standing. ................................. 15
`4. Nonjurisdictional issues like third-
`party standing provide no basis for
`remand unless timely raised. ............... 16
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`5. The law-of-the-case doctrine is
`discretionary—not jurisdictional—
`and its application was an abuse of
`discretion. .............................................. 17
`B. Statutory subject-matter jurisdiction did
`not provide a basis for remand. .................. 17
`1. The district court had statutory
`subject-matter jurisdiction. .................. 18
`a. Diversity jurisdiction exists for
`the entire case or controversy. ....... 18
`b. This Court should not require
`complete diversity for a removal
`by out-of-state defendants of
`private enforcement of state law. ... 21
`c. Even if California’s noncitizen
`status prevented complete
`diversity, the district court had
`diversity jurisdiction for Count II
`and supplemental jurisdiction for
`Count I. ........................................... 22
`2. Removal procedure is
`nonjurisdictional and thus waived. ...... 23
`II. The district court’s awarding fees was
`improper. ............................................................ 24
`III. The appeal was proper or—at least—not
`frivolous. ............................................................. 26
`A. The appeal of the related-case order was
`proper and not frivolous. ............................. 27
`B. Appeal of the remand was proper and not
`frivolous. ...................................................... 28
`1. Remand was not colorably based on a
`lack of Article III jurisdiction. .............. 29
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`2. Remand was not colorably based on a
`lack of statutory subject-matter
`jurisdiction. ........................................... 30
`3. Even if the district court’s remand
`fails the Powerex “colorable” test, BP
`may make the remand appealable. ...... 31
`IV. The jurisdictional issues are important and
`recurring. ............................................................ 33
`V. This petition is an ideal vehicle to address
`the issues presented........................................... 34
`VI. Alternatively, this Court could GVR the case
`for the Ninth Circuit to resolve issues not
`addressed in its summary disposition............... 35
`Conclusion ................................................................ 36
`
`
`APPENDIX
`Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr.
`Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 20-15457 (9th Cir.
`June 17, 2021) ...................................................... 1a
`Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr.
`Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 20-15457 (9th Cir.
`July 28, 2020) ....................................................... 5a
`Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr.
`Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 20-cv-00370-VC
`(N.D. Cal. May 30, 2020) ...................................... 7a
`Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr.
`Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 20-cv-00370-VC
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. Mar. 2, 2020) .............................. 9a
`Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr.
`Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 3:18-cv-05538-VC
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018) .................................... 11a
`Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr.
`Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 18-17463 (9th Cir.
`Mar. 21, 2019)..................................................... 13a
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr.
`Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 18-17463 (9th Cir.
`Sept. 10, 2019) .................................................... 14a
`Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr.
`Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 20-cv-00370-VC
`(N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2020) .................................... 15a
`Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr.
`Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 20-15457 (9th Cir.
`Mar. 23, 2020)..................................................... 16a
`Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr.
`Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 20-15457 (9th Cir.
`June 21, 2021) .................................................... 18a
`Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr.
`Int’l One, L.L.C., No. RG18914802 (Alameda Cty.
`Super. Ct. Sept. 2, 2021) .................................... 19a
`Envtl. Res. Ctr., Inc. v. Hotze Health & Wellness Ctr.
`Int’l One, L.L.C., No. 20-15457 (9th Cir.
`Jan. 12, 2021) ..................................................... 26a
`CAL. CODE OF CIV. PROC. § 17(6)............................. 28a
`CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 367 .................................... 28a
`CAL. CODE OF CIV. PROC. § 1021.5 .......................... 28a
`Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1060 ................................ 28a
`Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.7(c)-(d) ........... 29a
`Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.11(b) .............. 30a
`Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.12(d) .............. 30a
`Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.13 ................. 31a
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) ............................................ 31a
`28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) ................................................. 31a
`28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)-(c) ............................................ 31a
`28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) ................................................. 33a
`28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)-(d) ............................................ 34a
`28 U.S.C. § 1653 ..................................................... 34a
`Notice of Removal ................................................... 35a
`Teafatiller Decl. (Feb. 28, 2020) ............................ 43a
`Joseph Decl. (Feb. 28, 2020) .................................. 47a
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Bittick Decl. (Mar. 20, 2020) .................................. 50a
`Joseph Decl. (Mar. 20, 2020) .................................. 54a
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Abada v. Charles Schwab & Co.,
`300 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................... 12, 31
`
`Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,
`624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................. 31
`
`APCC Servs. v. AT&T Corp.,
`254 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D.D.C. 2003) ..................... 16
`
`Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.,
`546 U.S. 500 (2006) ............................................. 29
`
`ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of
`Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108
`(9th Cir. 2000) ..................................................... 22
`
`Barroso v. Gonzales,
`429 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................. 31
`
`Bemis Brothers Bag Co. v. U.S.,
`289 U.S. 28 (1933) ............................................... 15
`
`BP P.L.C. v. Mayor of Baltimore,
`141 S.Ct. 1532 (2021) ........................ 11, 31-32,, 35
`
`Brookshire Bros. Holding v. Dayco Prods.,
`554 F.3d 595 (5th Cir. 2009) .......................... 30-31
`
`Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. U.S.,
`491 U.S. 617 (1989) ............................................. 14
`
`Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc.,
`556 U.S. 635 (2009) ................ 11, 17-18, 22, 30, 32
`
`Degelmann v. Advanced Med. Optics Inc.,
`659 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................. 6
`
`Diamond v. Charles,
`476 U.S. 54 (1986) ............................................... 13
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer
`Healthcare, 32 Cal. 4th 910 (2004) .................... 3-4
`
`Envtl. Research Ctr. v. Heartland Prods.,
`29 F. Supp. 3d 1281 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ................. 15
`
`Ex parte Nebraska,
`209 U.S. 436 (1908) ............................................. 19
`
`Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs.,
`545 U.S. 546 (2005) ........................................ 22-23
`
`Fed’l Election Comm’n v. Akins,
`524 U.S. 11 (1998) ................................................. 6
`
`Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,
`980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................. 7
`
`GCB Communs., Inc. v. U.S. S. Communs., Inc.,
`650 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................. 28
`
`Glacier Gen. Assurance Co. v. G. Gordon
`Symons Co., 631 F.2d 131 (9th Cir. 1980).......... 20
`
`Gonzalez v. Arizona,
`677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ............... 17
`
`Granfinanciera v. Nordberg,
`492 U.S. 33 (1989) ............................................... 13
`
`Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P.,
`541 U.S. 567 (2004) ............................................. 23
`
`Guar. Tr. Co. v. York,
`326 U.S. 99 (1945) ......................................... 26, 34
`
`Hansen v. Blue Cross of Cal.,
`891 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1989) ............................. 17
`
`Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman,
`455 U.S. 363 (1982) ................................... 6, 14, 16
`
`Hernandez v. Mesa,
`137 S.Ct. 2003 (2017) .......................................... 35
`
`Iskanian v. CLS Transp. L.A., LLC,
`59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014) ......................................... 15
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Kakarala v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`136 S.Ct. 1153 (2016) .......................................... 33
`
`Kinney v. Gutierrez,
`709 F. App’x 453, 455 (9th Cir. 2017) ........... 12, 28
`
`Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust,
`547 U.S. 633 (2006) ....................................... 11, 29
`
`Lawrence v. Chater,
`516 U.S. 163 (1996) ............................................. 35
`
`Lony v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
`935 F.2d 604 (3d Cir. 1991) ................................ 30
`
`Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs.,
`999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021) ............. 12, 14, 16, 35
`
`Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.,
`546 U.S. 132 (2005) .................................. 24-25, 31
`
`Mo., Kan. and Tex. Ry. Co. v. Hickman,
`183 U.S. 53 (1901) ............................................... 19
`
`Mont. Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Stone-Manning,
`766 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2014) ....................... 16, 30
`
`Moor v. County of Alameda,
`411 U.S. 693 (1973) ............................................... 6
`
`Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain,
`490 U.S. 826 (1989) ........................................ 19-20
`
`O’Halloran v. Univ. of Wash.,
`856 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1988) ............................. 22
`
`Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.,
`527 U.S. 815 (1999) ............................................. 25
`
`Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger,
`437 U.S. 365 (1978) ............................................. 19
`
`People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
`Inc., v. Gittens, 396 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ... 15
`
`Pierce v. Underwood,
`487 U.S. 552 (1988) ............................................. 28
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs.,
`551 U.S. 224 (2007) ........................... 11, 29, 31, 34
`
`Pub. Citizen v. FTC,
`869 F.2d 1541 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ............................. 6
`
`Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
`517 U.S. 706 (1996) ............................................. 26
`
`Raygor v. Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota,
`534 U.S. 533 (2002) ............................................. 23
`
`Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,
`526 U.S. 574 (1999) ............................................. 24
`
`Shapiro v. McManus,
`577 U.S. 39 (2015) ............................................... 27
`
`Sprint Communs. Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs.,
`554 U.S. 269 (2008) ............................ 14-15, 17, 20
`
`State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire,
`386 U.S. 523 (1967) ............................................. 21
`
`Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't,
`523 U.S. 83 (1998) ............................................... 29
`
`Strawbridge v. Curtiss,
`7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806) .............................. 21
`
`Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus,
`573 U.S. 149 (2014) ....................................... 16, 30
`
`Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co.,
`473 U.S. 568 (1985) ............................................. 13
`
`Titus v. Wallick,
`306 U.S. 282 (1939) ............................................. 20
`
`Trans Penn Wax Corp. v. McCandless,
`50 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1995) .................................. 31
`
`U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York,
`556 U.S. 928 (2009) ........................................ 18-19
`
`U.S. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.,
`575 F.2d 222 (9th Cir. 1978) ............................... 15
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`U.S. v. Lynn,
`592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) ............................... 30
`
`Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel.
`Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000) ..................... 6, 14-15
`
`Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson,
`141 S.Ct. 2494 (2021) .......................................... 33
`
`Wilderness Soc., Inc. v. Rey,
`622 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................... 6
`
`Statutes
`
`U.S. CONST. art. III ....... 6, 11-17, 21, 24-25, 29, 33-35
`
`U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2 ............................................ 21
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ..................................................... 2
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1291 ......................................................... 2
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) ................................................ 2
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1367 ................................................... 7, 23
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) ..................................................... 2
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404 ......................................................... 6
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) ................................................... 18
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) ............................................ passim
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) ............................................ passim
`
`CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 367 ................................. 19-20
`
`CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 418.10(a) .............................. 5
`
`CAL. CODE OF CIV. PROC. § 1021.5 .................... 3, 7, 26
`
`CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
`§§ 25249.5-25249.14 ..................................... passim
`
`CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 25249.7(b)(1) ........... 3
`
`CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 25249.7(c) ..... 3, 19-20
`
`CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 25249.7(d) ..... 3, 19-20
`
`CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 25249.7(k)(3) ......... 20
`
`CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 25249.11(b) .............. 3
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 25249.12(c)(1) ........ 20
`
`CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 25249.13 .................. 3
`
`Rules, Regulations and Orders
`
`FED. R. APP. P. 35 ........................................................ 7
`
`FED. R. APP. P. 38 .................................................... 1-2
`
`FED. R. APP. P. 40 ....................................................... 7
`
`27 CAL. CODE REGS. § 25501 ...................................... 3
`
`27 CAL. CODE REGS. §§ 25601-25607.37 .................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Braden Campbell, Calif. Private AG Law: Coming
`To A State Near You? Law360 (Feb. 21, 2020) .. 33
`
`THE FEDERALIST NO. 80 (A. Hamilton) (C. Rossiter
`ed. 1961) ........................................................ 26, 34
`
`Letter, Michael L. Goodis, P.E., Director,
`Registration Division. Office of Pesticide
`Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
`(Aug. 7, 2019) ........................................................ 4
`
`Diego A. Zambrano, The States’ Interest in
`Federal Procedure, 70 STAN. L. REV. 1808
`(2018) ....................................................... 19, 26, 34
`
`
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`1
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`Hotze Health & Wellness Center International
`One, L.L.C., Physician’s Preference International, LP
`(“PPILP”), Braidwood Management, Inc., Paradigm
`Holdings, LLC, and Dr. Steven Hotze (collectively,
`hereinafter “Petitioners)—the defendants-appellants
`below—respectfully petition for a writ of certiorari to
`the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
`Circuit to review three discrete issues raised in their
`notice of appeal: (1) the remand of a state-court case
`filed by respondent Environmental Research Center,
`Inc. (“ERC”) —the plaintiff-appellee below—to state
`court; (2) a case-management order; and (3) attorney-
`fee awards in district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)
`and in the Ninth Circuit under FED. R. APP. P. 38.
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The Ninth Circuit’s memorandum affirming the
`district court’s attorney-fee award and finding the
`remand and case-management appeals frivolous is
`reported at 850 F.App'x 572 and reprinted in the
`Appendix (“App.”) at 1a. A Ninth Circuit motions
`panel’s unreported order dismissing the remand and
`case-management appeals is reprinted at App. 5a and
`available at 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23844. The
`motions panel’s unreported order denying rehearing
`of the motions panel’s dismissal of the remand and
`case-management appeals is reprinted at App. 26a
`and available at 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 792. The
`district court’s unreported order remanding the case
`to state court and assessing an attorney-fee award is
`reprinted at App. 7a and available at 2020 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 88768. The district court’s unreported case-
`management order is reprinted at App. 9a.
`
`
`
`

`

`2
`JURISDICTION
`On June 17, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued a
`Memorandum affirming the district court’s attorney-
`fee award and finding the appeal of the remand and
`case-management order frivolous. By Order dated
`April 15, 2020, this Court extended to 150 days the
`time within which to petition for a writ of certiorari.
`The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§
`1332(a)(1), 1367(a), and the Ninth Circuit had
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This Court has
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).1
`
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`The Appendix excerpts the statutes involved. Rule
`38 also applies: “If a court of appeals determines that
`an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed
`motion or notice from the court and reasonable
`opportunity to respond, award just damages and
`single or double costs to the appellee.” FED. R. APP. P.
`38.
`
`
`Jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand and case-
`1
`management orders is less clear. The Ninth Circuit motions
`panel dismissed the appeal of those orders on July 28, 2020, and
`denied Petitioners’ timely motion for en banc review of that
`dismissal by order dated January 21, 2021 (i.e., more than 150
`days ago). If dismissal of those facets of Petitioners’ notice of
`appeal is regarded as distinct or collateral, this Court would lack
`jurisdiction to review those orders themselves. The Ninth Circuit
`merits panel found those appeals frivolous as part of the
`Memorandum dated June 17, 2021, and this petition is filed
`within 150 days of that finding. This Court’s jurisdiction under
`28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) would thus extend to the finding that those
`appeals were frivolous, even if this Court would lack jurisdiction
`to reach the district court orders underlying those appeals.
`
`
`
`

`

`3
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`This action commenced as a private enforcement
`action under CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 25249.5-
`25249.14 (“Proposition 65”). Proposition 65 requires
`warnings about chemicals that California knows to
`cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive
`harm. 27 CAL. CODE REGS. §§ 25601-25607.37.
`Proposition 65 does not apply to entities with fewer
`than 10 employees, CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §
`25249.11(b), and exempts naturally occurring
`substances, 27 CAL. CODE REGS. § 25501, like trace
`amounts of lead available in organic ingredients.
`Proposition 65 imposes penalties of up to $2,500
`for each violation, CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §
`25249.7(b)(1), and authorizes private parties like ERC
`to bring enforcement actions. See id. § 25249.7(c)-(d).
`In private enforcement actions, the private enforcer
`recoups a quarter of the civil penalties, and a
`California state agency gets the balance. Id. §
`25249.12(d). Proposition 65 does not itself have a fee-
`shifting provision, but a general law shifts fees for
`actions that enforce “an important right affecting the
`public interest” and confer “a significant benefit … on
`the general public or a large class of persons.” CAL.
`CODE OF CIV. PROC. § 1021.5. Under its savings clause,
`Proposition 65 does not “alter or diminish any legal
`obligation otherwise required in common law” and its
`penalties “shall be in addition to any penalties …
`otherwise prescribed by law.” CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY
`CODE § 25249.13.
`Ubiquitous warnings like Proposition 65’s can
`“exacerbate[ over-warning problems] if warnings
`must be given even as to very remote risks.” Dowhal
`v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, 32 Cal.
`
`
`
`

`

`4
`(2004). California’s reportable
`4th 910, 931-32
`exposure levels are well below the levels set by the
`federal Food & Drug Administration. Similarly, the
`Environmental Protection Agency recently issued
`guidance to glyphosate pesticide registrants that
`including a Proposition 65 cancer warning on labeling
`would be misleading and would render the pesticide
`misbranded. Letter, Michael L. Goodis, P.E., Director,
`Registration Division. Office of Pesticide Programs,
`Environmental Protection Agency, at 1-2 (Aug. 7,
`2019).2 For reasons other than this litigation, PPILP
`modified its website in early 2019 to disable the ability
`to order products for shipment to California.
`
`The Underlying “Proposition 65” Action
`ERC filed its two-count complaint in state court
`against PPILP, Braidwood, and the wellness center—
`which all are Texas-based entities—to enforce
`Proposition 65 in Count I and to seek related non-
`statutory relief in Count II; the complaint seeks an
`attorney-fee award for both counts. In addition to its
`special pleadings, the complaint also includes a
`general prayer for “such other relief as the Court may
`deem just and proper.”
`At all relevant times, PPILP was the only entity
`that sold nutritional supplements into California via
`the hotzevitamins.com website. App. 23a (state court’s
`holding), PPILP has always had fewer than 10
`employees, App. 45a-46a (¶¶ 11-13, 17), 52a (¶¶ 9-11),
`which exempts PPILP from Proposition 65. CAL.
`HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 25249.11(b). In addition,
`
`
`2 Available https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-
`08/documents/glyphosate_registrant_letter_-_8-7-19_-
`_signed.pdf (last visited Feb. 6, 2020).
`
`
`
`

`

`5
`PPILP claims that any lead in its products represents
`trace amounts of naturally occurring lead from the
`natural ingredients.
`On September 10, 2018, PPILP timely removed
`the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
`District of California, which remanded the case as
`explained below. On remand to state court, ERC
`dismissed Braidwood and the wellness center without
`prejudice, but later sought (and was granted) leave to
`amend the complaint to add them back as defendants,
`along with two new defendants—Paradigm and Dr.
`Hotze—on an alter ego or joint enterprise theory. As
`ERC later admitted at a hearing, ERC added the new
`defendants in an effort to bolster the employee count.
`The amended complaint gave the new defendants
`the chance to file a second removal, which gives rise
`to this appeal. As explained below, the district court
`again remanded the case. In state court, ERC has had
`ample discovery—three depositions and hundreds of
`special interrogatories, requests for admissions, and
`requests for documents—and has not proven either a
`joint enterprise among the defendants or an employee
`count of 10 or more for PPILP. The state court granted
`the four new defendants’ motion to dismiss on
`personal-jurisdiction grounds, but denied PPILP’s
`motions to dismiss on both inconvenient-forum and
`personal-jurisdiction grounds. PPILP petitioned the
`state court of appeals for a writ of mandate—the
`California term for mandamus—to grant those two
`motions, which is the procedure that California sets
`for threshold challenges to jurisdiction and venue.
`CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 418.10(a). The petition is
`pending; if granted, the California mandate would
`moot claims for injunctive relief, but not fee awards.
`
`
`
`

`

`6
`PPILP’s Removal to Federal Court
`On September 10, 2018, PPILP timely removed
`the action to federal court. On November 1, 2018, ERC
`moved to remand, citing a lack of an Article III case or
`controversy and an insufficient amount in controversy
`for diversity jurisdiction. Petitioners cross-moved to
`transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. By order, the district
`court sua sponte raised the issue that the State of
`California—a non-party that has authorized private
`enforcers like ERC to bring Proposition 65 suits—
`might destroy diversity because “a State is not a
`‘citizen’ for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.” Moor v.
`County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 717 (1973).
`Petitioners made two discrete arguments for
`federal jurisdiction: (1) “Assignee standing” under Vt.
`Agency of Natural Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S.
`765, 771-73 (2000), with the amount in controversy
`made up by the $2,500 maximum penalty for each of
`the 44 allegedly unlawful shipments that ERC
`admitted to purchasing; and (2) “Purchaser standing”
`for both economic injury, Degelmann v. Advanced
`Med. Optics Inc., 659 F.3d 835, 840 (9th Cir. 2011)
`(purchase price); Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455
`U.S. 363, 373
`(1982)
`(“tester” standing), and
`informational injury, Wilderness Soc., Inc. v. Rey, 622
`F.3d 1251, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010); Pub. Citizen v. FTC,
`869 F.2d 1541, 1550 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Fed’l Election
`Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 19-20 (1998), with the
`amount in controversy made up by the attorney-fee
`
`
`
`

`

`7
`award that ERC claims under CAL. CODE OF CIV.
`PROC. § 1021.5.3
`Although PPILP’s Notice of Removal did not
`mention
`supplemental
`jurisdiction, Petitioners
`argued in a post-hearing letter brief that the district
`court’s supplemental
`jurisdiction would provide
`jurisdiction for Count I if non-party California’s
`interest
`in enforcing Proposition 65 destroyed
`complete diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Addressing only
`assignee-based standing and the diversity issue, the
`district
`court
`remanded without
`addressing
`purchaser-based sta