Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Good Law
169 Cal. App. 4th 1264·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 9·87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 580·39 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20007
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 7, 2009B204987California10,690 words

Opinion

Opinion

Suzukawa, J.

On April 20, 2007, respondent Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) listed di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP) as a chemical known to cause reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 25249.5-25249.13), commonly known as Proposition 65. Appellant Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) sought a writ of mandate challenging OEHHA’s listing. The trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate, and Exxon appealed. Because we conclude that OEHHA did not abuse its discretion in listing DIDP as a chemical known to cause reproductive toxicity, we affirm.

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

I. Overview of Proposition

Californians adopted Proposition 65 through the voter initiative process in November 1986. The provisions of Proposition 65 were subsequently codified in Health and Safety Code sections 25249.5 through 25249.13.

Proposition 65 requires that, at least once per year, the Governor shall cause to be published “a list of those chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity within the meaning of this chapter.” (§ 25249.8, subd. (a).) The listing of a chemical triggers two requirements.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.