Embry
B&G Foods North America, Inc. v. Embry
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] B&G Foods North America, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00526-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Kim Embry and Environmental Health 15 Advocates, Inc., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff B&G Foods North America, Inc. (B&G) brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 19 | § 1983 against defendants Kim Embry and Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. (EHA). B&G 20 | alleges Embry and EHA violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by bringing private 21 | enforcement actions under California chemical disclosure rules, commonly known as 22 | “Proposition 65.” Embry and EHA contend B&G’s complaint is barred by Noerr-Pennington 23 | immunity. In response, B&G argues the defendants’ Proposition 65 citizen enforcement lawsuits 24 | are asham and entitled to no protections. B&G has not alleged sufficient facts to support that 25 | claim, so Embry and EHA’s motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed with leave to 26 | amend.