This is a Prop. 65 case about whether there needs to be a
disclosure about trace amounts of arsenic that appears in some wine. There’s already a disclosure about alcohol.
But plaintiffs want a more general disclosure about other bad chemical stuff
too.
The issue is that most of the defendants in the case
settled very similar claims in a prior litigation that resulted in a consent
decree. The court holds that, for these defendants, the prior case is claim
preclusive to this one.
Which seems mostly fine, except that the plaintiffs in
this case aren’t the same plaintiffs who brought the the first case. As good should 1Ls know—and the Supreme Court made super duper clear a few years ago—claim
preclusion (i.e., res judicata) only works when the same parties, or those in privity with those
parties, are in both cases. Now, maybe there’s something about Prop. 65 litigation
that makes every plaintiff privy with every other. Perhaps they are all
bringing some quitamish thing on
behalf of the public? I’m not a Prop. 65 guy, so I don’t know. But one would at
least expect some discussion of the point, and there’s not any in the opinion
here. So I’m confused.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment