throbber
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

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