California Court of Appeal

Because the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act contains a provision which expressly exempts Proposition 65 from federal preemption, an action based on failure to place warnings on nicotine delivery products (marketed as aids to stop smoking) was actionable in state court.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/12/2002
• Published 07/12/2002

Judges

• JONES, P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Eric S. Somers,Mark N. Todzo, Todd E. Robins, Lexington Law Group, LLP, San Francisco, for plaintiff and appellant., Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Richard M. Frank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Theodora Berger, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Craig Thompson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Edward G. Weil, Dennis Ragen, Susan S. Fiering, Deputy Attorneys General, Amicus Curiae on behalf of plaintiff and appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• James P. Bennett, Michelle B. Corash, Maria Chedid, Brooks M. Beard, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, San Francisco, Gene Livingston, Matthew J. Goldman, Livingston & Mattesich Law Corp., Sacramento, Paul D. Fogel, San Francisco, John E. Dittoe, Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, Oakland, for defendants and respondents., Catherine Hanson, Astrid Meghrigian, California Medical Association, San Francisco, Daniel E. Troy, Chief Counsel, Lynn Whipkey Mehler, Associate Chief Counsel, Heidi P. Foster, Assistant Chief Counsel, Food and Drug Administration, Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, David W. Shapiro, United States Attorney, Douglass Letter, Peter R. Maier, Department of Justice, Amicus Curiae on behalf of defendants and respondents.