Debra Foli v. Metro. Water Dist. of S. Cal.

MEMORANDUM

Debra Foli and several other individual plaintiffs (collectively “Foli”) appeal the district court’s order dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process and equal protection claims, their 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim, and their state íaw claims relating to use of hydrofluosilicic acid (HFSA) by Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to fluoridate public drinking water. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. We grant MWD’s motion for judicial notice with respect to exhibit 3 to the motion (“NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Products”), and we deny the motion with respect to exhibits 1 and 2. We deny Foli’s motion for judicial notice.

2. In Coshow v. City of Escondido, the California Court of Appeal considered the same due process arguments Foli makes in this case. 132 Cal.App.4th 687 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 19, 25-33 (2005). We agree with that court’s well-reasoned conclusion that fluoridating public drinking water with HFSA does not violate any fundamental right. Id. at 29-31; see also, e.g., DeAryan v. Butler, 119 Cal.App.2d 674 , 260 P.2d 98, 102-03 (1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 1012 , 74 S.Ct. 863 , 98 L.Ed. 1135 (1954); Schuringa v. City of Chicago, 30…