Stratton

Committee of Dental Amalgam Manufacturers & Distributors v. Stratton

Good Law
92 F.3d 807·1996 WL 435603
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 5, 1996Nos. 94-56508, 94-56512California2,225 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pregerson, J.

The defendants, Dr. James Stratton, Acting Director of the California Office of Health Hazard Assessment, and Dan Lun-gren, the Attorney General of the State of California (collectively the “State”), and the intervening party, Environmental Law Foundation (“ELF”), appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Committee of Dental Amalgam Alloy Manufacturers and Distributors and Dentsply International, Inc. (collectively the “manufacturers”). The district court held that, as applied to dental amalgam, the Medical Device Amendments to the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (“MDA”), 21 U.S.C. § 321-394 , preempt California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (“Proposition 65”), Cal.Health and Safety Code §§ 25249.5-25249.13. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse.

BACKGROUND

Proposition 65 was passed by the voters of California in 1986. Proposition 65 mandates that the public be informed about products that pose a health risk. Proposition 65 specifically states:

Cal.Health & Safety Code § 25249.6.

Similarly, Congress enacted the MDA “to…

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.