Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights, recommendations, and timely reports on the latest defense news, developments, and trends in the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies. Through Class Dismissed, attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Products Liability practices offer a real-time assessment of the developments in matters that are shaping the industry. This blog examines the full spectrum of consumer-related class action and product liability lawsuits ranging from false advertising, privacy, consumer product safety, ADA, food misbranding, TCPA, environment, retail, and government actions as well as nationwide and multidistrict litigation class actions.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Editors

park_julie_blog_150x150.png

park_julie_common_640x280.jpg

park_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

park_julie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

park_julie_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Julie Park protects her clients’ products no matter what kind of product issue they face—whether it is planning for new product development, recalling an existing product, or defending clients against product liability or consumer class actions. Drawing on her deep technical and legal expertise, Julie counsels clients on consumer product safety regulation and pharmaceutical and medical device preemption while also managing complex and multijurisdictional litigation both in state and federal court.

Julie Y. Park

<div class="videoWrapper"><iframe frameborder="0" class="sticky-video" allowfullscreen="1" title="Meet Penny Preovolos, Litigation Partner" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/hv7hYn-Bl7c?rel=0&showinfo=0;vq=hd1080" title="iframe"></iframe></div>Penelope has served as lead counsel in major consumer class actions and antitrust cases for more than 35 years, successfully representing high-profile defendants in antitrust, consumer fraud, and product defect matters. Her clients span a range of industries, including consumer electronics, technology, retail, publishing, food and beverage, cosmetics, and household products. According to Chambers USA, Penelope has a “great reputation for antitrust and product liability work” and is a “superb all-around antitrust lawyer.”Penelope was named the 2019 Antitrust Lawyer of the Year by the Antitrust, UCL, and Privacy Section of the California Lawyers Association. She was co-chair of MoFo’s antitrust practice for 14 years. She has served as chair of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Section of the State Bar of California and as a member of the Ninth Circuit Advisory Committee on Local Rules and Operations. She is an editor of and frequent contributor to Morrison & Foerster’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/">Class Dismissed blog</a>, as well as a frequent speaker about class action and antitrust issues.More About PenelopePenelope clerked for the Honorable Charles M. Merrill, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School, where she was executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review. Penelope was a member of Phi Beta Kappa at the University of California, Berkeley. She was awarded the University Medal, the highest undergraduate honor at the university, as well as the English Departmental Citation (awarded to the outstanding graduate in that department).

preovolos_penelope_blog_150x150.png

preovolos_penelope_common_640x280.jpg

preovolos_penelope_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

preovolos_penelope_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

preovolos_penelope_social_600x600.jpg

Senior Counsel

Penelope has served as lead counsel in major consumer class actions and antitrust cases for more than 35 years, successfully representing high-profile defendants in antitrust, consumer fraud, and product defect matters. Her clients span a range of industries, including consumer electronics, technology, retail, publishing, food and beverage, cosmetics, and household products.

Penelope A. Preovolos

Claudia focuses her practice on the defense of consumer class actions and on complex commercial litigation, including unfair business competition, false advertising, product liability, and privacy matters. She is currently representing numerous consumer goods manufacturers and retailers in false advertising and mislabeling class action lawsuits. Claudia also regularly counsels clients in the food, cosmetics, retail, and technology industries. She represents companies in false advertising disputes before the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.<h5>More about Claudia</h5>Claudia is active in MoFo’s pro bono efforts, and recently traveled to El Paso, Texas, to work with families separated and detained at the border. She is also supervising a pro bono collaboration with Equal Rights Advocates, a nonprofit fighting for gender justice in work places and schools across the country. The initiative will help students who have been victims of sexual assault, attempted assault, or harassment find support and seek justice. Claudia is also a board member of Bay Area Legal Aid and a former board member of Equal Rights Advocates. Claudia is an editor and frequent contributor to MoFo’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/">Class Dismissed</a> blog, which provides reports about the latest defense news, developments, and trends in class action lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies. Her perspectives are also respected in the larger legal community: Claudia has published articles about class action and false advertising issues, and is a co-author of Chapter 7 — “Unfair Competition in California Business Litigation 2016” — of The Recorder. She also regularly speaks at conferences on class action and advertising trends. Claudia is currently serving as a Lawyer Representative for the Northern District of California. She received her J.D. degree in 2004 from Berkeley Law (Boalt Hall School of Law), where she was an associate editor of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal.

vetesi_claudia_blog_150x150.png

vetesi_claudia_common_640x280.jpg

vetesi_claudia_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

vetesi_claudia_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

vetesi_claudia_social_600x600.jpg

Claudia focuses her practice on the defense of consumer class actions and on complex commercial litigation, including unfair business competition, false advertising, product liability, and privacy matters. She is currently representing numerous consumer goods manufacturers and retailers in false advertising and mislabeling class actions.

Claudia M. Vetesi

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office.Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, automobiles, and AI. Alexandra's litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.Alexandra has significant trial experience. She has first-chaired a one-week jury trial and second-chaired a five‑week jury trial, both involving multiple claims and witnesses. She also has extensive experience in alternative dispute resolution, representing clients at mediations, mandatory settlement conferences, and early neutral evaluations.Alexandra enjoys tracking developments and keeping her clients updated on product liability and personal injury claims, frequently writing or presenting on emerging areas such as autonomous vehicles and smart devices. Alexandra’s experience also extends to professional liability, warranty claims, eminent domain, and construction law.Alexandra earned her J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law. While in law school, the San Diego Law Review published her comment on the recovery of damages by plaintiffs in a persistent vegetative state, and she also served as a comment editor. She received her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, where she majored in Political Science and minored in Spanish. A San Diego native, she attended a Spanish immersion school through the eighth grade. Alexandra is active in the San Diego community, advising students at a local college. She is also a member of several legal organizations in San Diego, including Lawyer’s Club, the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, and Wallace Inn of Court.

preece_alex_blog_150x150.png

preece_alex_common_640x280.jpg

preece_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

preece_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

preece_alex_social_600x600.jpg

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office. Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, automobiles, and AI. Alexandra’s litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office. Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, AI, and robotics. Alexandra's litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.

Alexandra Barlow

Adam J. Hunt is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s New York office. His practice focuses on complex litigation, with an emphasis on class action and commercial litigation.Mr. Hunt has extensive experience representing consumer products companies, financial institutions, and technology firms in class action cases and complex commercial disputes before state and federal trial courts, as well as in arbitrations. Clients seek Mr. Hunt’s counsel for his creative, strategic thinking in high-stakes, high-profile matters. He has represented clients facing claims under false advertising, antitrust, and privacy laws throughout the country, securing wins at the pleading stage, summary judgment, and trial, in addition to negotiating favorable settlements, often early in the case. Representative experience includes successfully securing rulings dismissing two putative false advertising class action cases against one of the best-known consumer electronics companies in the world; obtaining a complete win on summary judgment for a major shipping and logistics company in a multimillion-dollar commercial dispute; appearing as counsel at trial for a leading financial institution in a $100 million commercial dispute, winning a bench trial verdict; and prevailing on motions to dismiss false advertising class actions against a leading Greek yogurt company.Mr. Hunt is also an editor of the firm’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/" target="_self">Class Dismissed blog</a>, which provides insights, recommendations, and timely reports on the latest defense news, developments, and trends in the most current class action lawsuits that affect consumer-facing companies.Mr. Hunt maintains an active pro bono practice and is the recipient of the New York State Bar Association’s 2017 President’s Pro Bono Service Award for the First Judicial Department, the 2018 Public Service Award from New York University School of Law, and Morrison Foerster’s Kathi Pugh Award for Pro Bono Services.Mr. Hunt received his B.A. with honors from Swarthmore College and his J.D. cum laude from New York University.

hunt_adam_blog_150x150.png

hunt_adam_common_640x280.jpg

hunt_adam_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

hunt_adam_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

hunt_adam_social_600x600.jpg

Adam Hunt is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s New York office. His practice focuses on complex litigation, with an emphasis on class action and commercial litigation.

Adam Hunt

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies. Subscribe to receive the latest updates by attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices.

Welcome to Class Dismissed

class-dismissed-welcome-image.jpeg

class-dismissed-welcome-image

Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies. 

Class Action

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

The latest news and insights from the nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices of Morrison & Foerster.

Class Dismissed

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Class Dismissed Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

By submitting your data to subscribe to this blog, you approved Morrison & Foerster LLP to email you future information about MoFo news and events. You may opt-out at any time by sending a request to <a href="mailto:mofonews@mofo.com">mofonews@mofo.com</a>. To learn more about how Morrison & Foerster LLP uses and protects your personal data, please view our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a> at <a href="https://www.mofo.com/">www.mofo.com</a>.

Never miss a post from Class Dismissed. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

Class Action and Product Insights for Your Business

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

TCPA

Announcements & Press

Antitrust

Appellate & Supreme Court

Arbitration

Autonomous Vehicles & Robotics

Aviation & Drones

Class Certification

Consumer Products

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

CPSC

Drug & Medical Device

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

Environmental Law

False Advertising

FCRA

Food Misbranding

Government Actions

Internet of Things

Mass Torts

Pharmaceutical & Medical Devices

Privacy

Product Liability

Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act)

Retail

Trials

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Alexandra Preece Barlow

Adam J. Hunt

The Future of Section 230: Protection Against Product Liability Claims?

New Wave of PFAS Legislation Aimed at Consumer Products

CPSC Releases Annual Report on Deaths and Injuries Involving Nursery Products

CPSC Proposes New Safety Rules for Infant Rockers

CPSC Commissioners Abstain from Retracting Infant Sleep Product Statements

LinkedIN

On April 29, 2015, California’s Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order to set a new interim target for reducing the state’s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.  In March 2015, we wrote about the current state of play in GHG regulation in California, noting that the California Global Warming Solutions Act’s (AB 32) silence on GHG reduction requirements after 2020 left a vacuum that could be filled by a 2005 Executive Order issued by Governor Schwarzenegger. The 2005 Executive Order called for GHG emissions to be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.  Governor Brown’s new Executive Order doubles down on that ambitious goal by setting a similarly ambitious interim target of 40 percent reduction by 2030.Depending in part on how currently pending litigation and proposed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) are resolved (which we also reported on in our March alert), this latest order threatens to be yet another standard for project proponents to grapple with in determining the significance of their GHG emissions when undergoing environmental review.  SB 32 would codify into state law the requirement that the California Air Resource Board (CARB) approve a statewide GHG emissions limit of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.  As for litigation, briefs have not yet been filed in Cleveland National Forest Foundation et al. v. San Diego Association of Governments, in which the California Supreme Court will determine the import of GHG reduction targets established by gubernatorial decree, such as those in Governor Schwarzenegger’s—and now Governor Brown’s—Executive Orders, unless the state legislature beats it to the punch with SB 32.In the meantime, Governor Brown’s new Executive Order contains numerous requirements directed at state agencies to achieve these ambitious goals.  It calls on CARB to update its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which provides the road map for how GHG reductions will be achieved.  This critical document provides industry with detailed information on what exactly the state will do to regulate GHG emissions.  The Governor’s announcement also can be seen as aligned with many of his other proposals, such as further tightening of the caps in CARB’s aggressive cap-and-trade program, the controversial high-speed rail program, and the initiatives to shift electricity generation to renewable energy sources.  While many experts believe that the interim reductions can be achieved with the increased use of existing technologies, the wild card will be California’s future economic growth, which may strain or counteract the projections of emission reductions.  Thus, the ambitious goals called for by 2030 and 2050 will likely demand a multipronged approach that could have serious impacts on California businesses, including the need for development of new technologies that are not currently available.In connection with the California Natural Resources Agency’s climate adaptation strategy document known as “Safeguarding California,” agencies in key sectors, including water, energy, transportation, and forestry, will be required to prepare implementation plans by September 2015 and to report on actions taken by June 2016.  This aspect of the Executive Order cements climate adaptation as a critical element of agency planning.State agencies will also be required to take climate change into account in planning and investment decisions.  Full life-cycle cost accounting will likely become the norm for state-funded projects.  In other words, projects that utilize GHG reduction strategies to a greater extent will presumably receive an additional boost when being compared to alternatives, even if the alternatives have potentially lower up-front costs.  Current and future climate change impacts will also be taken into account for all infrastructure projects going forward under the state’s Five-Year Infrastructure Plan.To assist agencies with their new responsibilities and obligations, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is establishing a technical advisory group.  It will be important to track who is selected to be part of this advisory group, as its technical expertise may significantly influence the actual agency decisions that will affect California businesses.Governor Brown is not backing down from the ambitious, aggressive target of an 80 percent GHG emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.  His Executive Order assures that the trajectory for such reductions is in place by adopting the interim target of a 40 percent emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2030.  Further action by the state legislature or the California Supreme Court may ultimately determine the future of California GHG regulation, but, for now, California businesses must focus on the new Executive Order and the additional regulation it is likely to induce across the state.

California Greenhouse Gas Mandates Keep Coming— Governor Orders 40 Percent Reductions Below 1990 Levels by 2030

On April 29, 2015, California’s Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order to set a new interim target for reducing the state’s emissions of greenhouse gase

California Greenhouse Gas Mandates Keep Coming— Governor Orders 40 Percent Reductions Below 1990 Levels by 2030

California’s Green Chemistry Initiative continues to build momentum.  On April 16, 2015, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released its final April 2015 Priority Product Work Plan for 2015–2017 (“Work Plan”).  The Work Plan is the first step in identifying the next set of Priority Products for regulation under California’s Safer Consumer Products Act.  It sets forth seven new product categories, examples, and potential candidate chemicals regarding the types of products that may be evaluated over the next three years.  The product categories, examples, and potential candidate chemicals are:<ul><li>Beauty/Personal Care/Hygiene: Skin Products, Personal Hygiene Products, Hair Products, and Cosmetics and Fragrances (Aldehydes, Formaldehyde; Alkylphenol Ethoxylates (APEs); Azo Dyes, Coal Tars, Lead, and Lead Acetate; Phthalates; Triclosan; and Toluene);</li><li>Building Products (Painting Products, Adhesives, Sealants, and Flooring): Adhesives and Glues, Carpeting and Carpet Padding, Engineered Wood and Laminate Flooring, Paints and Primers, Paint and Graffiti Removers, Roof Coatings, Sealants, and Vinyl Flooring (Brominated or Chlorinated Organic Compounds, Organophosphates; Isocyanates; Metals, such as Chromium VI; Perfluorochemicals; Phthalates; and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), such as Formaldehyde, n-hexane, n-methyl-pyrrolidone, Toluene);</li><li>Household/Office Funiture/Furnishings with PFCs, FRs: Bedding, Curtains, Fabric and Textile Furnishings, and Household and Office Seating (Chlorinated and Brominated Organic ompounds, Organophosphates; and Perfluorochemicals);</li><li>Cleaning Products: Fresheners and Deodorizers, Cleaners, Laundry, and Surface Care (APEs; Hydrogen Fluoride; Phthalates; and Triclosan);</li><li>Clothing: Full Body Wear, Lower Body Wear and Bottoms, Sleepwear, Sportswear, Underwear, and Upper Body Wear and Tops (APEs; Aromatic Amines and Azo Dyes; Perfluorochemicals, Formaldehyde; Phthalates; and Triclosan);</li><li>Fishing and Angling Equipment: Fishing Weights (Metals); and</li><li>Office Machinery (Consumable Products): Inks and Toners, and Thermal Paper (Azo Dyes; Bisphenols; Phthalates: and VOCs such as Hexane, Toluene and Xylene).</li></ul>Prior to the release of the final Work Plan, DTSC received comments on its draft September 14, 2014 Priority Product Work Plan (“draft Work Plan”).  (See prior MoFo client alert).  Substantive comments requested:<ul><li>Adding product categories (notably, food packaging and automotive products) or refining or dropping existing ones, specifically building products and fishing and angling equipment;</li><li>Adding chemicals to the Candidate Chemicals List (e.g., chlorinated and organophosphate flame retardants) or narrowing the scope of chemicals under considerations; and</li><li>Prioritization of specific products during the Work Plan cycle.</li></ul>Some of the changes made to the final Work Plan from the draft Work Plan include:<ul><li>Addition of carpet padding and insulation, as well as wall coverings with flame retardants, as examples in the “Building Products” category narrative;</li><li>Addition of wall coverings with flame retardants as an example in the “Household/Office Furniture and Furnishings” category narrative;</li><li>Revision of the “Clothing” product category narrative, clarifying that the category does not include protective wear for occupational safety purposes.</li></ul>DTSC did not add any new chemicals to the Candidate Chemicals List, nor did it add any new product categories to, or remove any categories from, the final Work Plan.  In 2017, DTSC plans to issue its next Priority Product Work Plan covering the time period 2018 – 2020.  DTSC continues to be behind schedule in moving forward with its plans to regulate its first set of Priority Products.  The final Work Plan shows, however, that the agency has not backed away from its plans to press forward with the Green Chemistry Initiative and to continue to broaden its reach to other consumer products.

In re Lumber Liquidators Chinese Laminate Litigation

Maxus Energy Corporation

In re Hydroxycut Personal Injury and Class Action Litigation

Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA)

Environmental Law Foundation v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., et al

Fitbit Force Recall 

People of the State of California v. The Coca-Cola Company

Seagate Technology LLC

Clif Bar, Inc.

tarantino_william_blog_150x150.png

tarantino_william_common_640x280.jpg

tarantino_william_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

tarantino_william_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

tarantino_william_social_600x600.jpg

Drawing on his considerable experience in environmental health, William (Bill) focuses his practice on environmental and consumer protection law, with an emphasis on climate-related goals and claims, hazardous substances, mass torts, and consumer product safety.

William Tarantino

Drawing on his considerable experience in environmental health, William (Bill) focuses his practice on environmental and consumer protection law, with an emphasis on hazardous substances, mass torts, and consumer product safety.

William F. Tarantino

California’s Green Chemistry Agency Issues New Guidance to Identify Future Consumer Products for Regulation

California’s Green Chemistry Initiative continues to build momentum.  On April 16, 2015, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released i

California’s Green Chemistry Agency Issues New Guidance to Identify Future Consumer Products for Regulation

On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger et al.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, or the “Superfund” law), which preempts state statutes of limitations for certain tort actions involving environmental harms, does not preempt state statutes of repose.  42 U.S.C. § 9658.  The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s decision that Section 9658 applies to both state statutes of limitations and state statutes of repose.  While the Court’s ruling does not affect CERCLA-based cleanups or natural resources damages claims, it has particular significance for claims brought under non-CERCLA alternative theories, where a CERCLA-based claim is unavailable.  Such claims would include those subject to CERCLA’s petroleum exclusion or exemption for federally permitted releases of hazardous substances, as well as claims for personal injury, medical monitoring, or diminution in property values.BackgroundCongress enacted CERCLA in 1980 to promote the timely cleanup of hazardous waste sites and to ensure that the costs of such cleanup efforts were borne by those responsible for the contamination.  Under CERCLA’s Section 9658 framework, state statutes of limitations in covered actions are preempted.  Congress included Section 9658’s preemption provision because of the potentially long delay from the time that the release of contamination occurs and the time that a plaintiff discovers the resulting injury.  The statute of limitations instead begins to run when a plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, that the harm in question was caused by the contaminant.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a>In CTS Corp., the Supreme Court faced the question of whether Section 9658 also preempts state statutes of ultimate repose.  A statute of repose puts an outer limit on the right to bring a civil action measured from the date of the defendant’s last culpable act or omission.  Statutes of repose reflect legislative decisions that as a matter of policy there should be a specific time beyond which a defendant should no longer be subjected to protracted liability.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a>In this case, defendant CTS Corporation operated an electronics plant in Asheville, North Carolina, from 1959 to 1985.  CTS stored various chemicals on its property and sold the property in 1987.  The buyer eventually sold portions of the property to individuals who, together with adjacent landowners, brought a state-law nuisance suit against CTS alleging damages from contaminants on the land.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a>  The plaintiffs brought the suit in 2011, two years after they allegedly learned from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that their well water was contaminated.  CTS moved to dismiss the claim, citing North Carolina’s 10-year statute of repose.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a>  Because CTS’ last act occurred in 1987, when it sold the electronics plant, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss the nuisance claim as time-barred.  The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the federal CERCLA applied to preempt North Carolina’s statute of repose.RulingIn a decision based on principles of statutory construction, the Court held that state statutes of repose are not preempted by Section 9658.  Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, found it instructive that Section 9658 uses the term “statute of limitations” four times, but not the term “statute of repose.”<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a>  In addition, Section 9658 characterizes preemption as the “exception” to the regular rule<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7">[7]</a> and describes the covered limitations period in the singular.<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8">[8]</a>  Finally, Congress was aware of the difference between a statute of limitations and a statute of repose because the distinction was re­flected in the 1982 Study Group Report that guided Section 9658’s enactment.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9">[9]</a>Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined the opinion in full.  Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined as to all of the opinion except part II-D, where Kennedy stated that “when the text of a pre-emption clause is susceptible of more than one plausible reading, courts ordinarily ‘accept the reading that disfavors pre-emption.’”<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10">[10]</a>ConclusionThe Court’s opinion effectively empowers state legislatures to decide, as a matter of local policy, the extent to which they want their tort laws to reach back in time with respect to liabilities for legacies of environmental contamination.  States that wish to limit such liabilities may now rely upon or enact statutes of repose, which mandate a “hard-stop” on the filing of such tort claims based upon when the contamination actually occurred.  States that instead prefer to allow lengthy reach-backs to potentially responsible parties for environmental contamination may continue to rely on CERCLA’s preemptive shield that applies a three-year “discovery” rule to state-law statutes of limitations on tort claims.  <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> No. 13-339 (June 9, 2014), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-339_886a.pdf.<a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> This is known as the “discovery rule.”<a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> CTS Corp., No. 13-339, slip op. at 6 (June 9, 2014) (citing School Board of Norfolk v. United States Gypsum Co., 234 Va. 32, 37, 360 S.E.2d 325, 328 (1987)).<a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> Id. at 3.<a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a> N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 1–52(16) (“[N]o cause of action shall accrue more than 10 years after the last act or omission of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action”).<a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a> CTS Corp., No. 13-339, slip op. at 11 (June 9, 2014).<a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">[7]</a> Id. at 10.<a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8">[8]</a> Id. at 13.<a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9">[9]</a> Id.<a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10">[10]</a> Id. at 17 (quoting Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 77 (2008)).

The “Discovery” Rule Is No Longer Supreme: The Supreme Court Holds That State Statutes of Repose Are Not Preempted by CERCLA

On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger et al.  that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 19

The “Discovery” Rule Is No Longer Supreme:  The Supreme Court Holds That State Statutes of Repose Are Not Preempted by CERCLA