U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam has remanded an environmental group’s litigation against the biggest manufacturers of food and drink to San Mateo Superior Court last week.
“The court finds that defendants have not satisfied their burden to establish federal enclave jurisdiction because none of the conduct alleged in the complaint or the harm the complaint seeks to remedy has its locust on a federal enclave,” Judge Gilliam wrote in his Feb. 23 ruling.
Earth Island Institute sued 10 big plastic corporations, accusing the companies of being responsible for plastics pollution in California and around the world.
“This was in our mind an effort to delay the case from moving forward,” said plaintiff attorney Mark Molumphy, partner with Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy law firm. “In fact, we have been delayed for almost a year during the defendants’ effort to move the case from California court to federal court, which has no jurisdiction over the claims. So, it's a victory in that we now finally get to move forward with the case in its discovery.”
Defendants include Crystal Geyser, Nestle, Pepsico, Clorox, Proctor and Gamble, Colgate Palmolive, Mars, Danone, Mondelez and Coca-Cola.
“Unless we stop this pattern and trend of plastic pollution, which is only getting exponentially worse over time, plastic will outweigh fish in the oceans within 10, 20, or 30 years,” Molumphy told the Southern California Record. “We can't afford to let that happen.”
Defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Causes of action within the state complaint include violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and public nuisance under California common law.
“This is an important case not just for this generation of Californians but for future generations,” Molumphy said. “Nothing short of California's waterways, our source of marine life and future enjoyment of the California land is at stake in this case.”
As previously reported, the lawsuit included complaints about the accumulation of plastic waste on beaches in Bali, Indonesia, and in the Yangtze River in China; about municipal recycling programs from Philadelphia to Minneapolis to Alabama to Oregon and about plastic export policies in China.
“The mere fact that this conduct has repercussions outside California does not detract from the fact that Californians should have their day in court,” Molumphy said. “The scope of the case and the scope of the damages that we allege are based upon damage in California.”
Earth Island Institute accuses the defendants of refusing to adopt more sustainable alternatives, such as using recyclable refillable, glass, or aluminum because they prefer the higher profits secured from using virgin plastic, which is cheaper.
“If we were able to succeed in this case and obtain relief, including orders that change the way they do business, you can just imagine the type of beneficial impact this could have in other States and other countries,” Molumphy added. “We did this with respect to the lead paint industry. There's no reason why a similar type of public nuisance theory shouldn’t be applied to stop similar plastic pollution here.”
Legal Newsline reported that in early 2014, Santa Clara Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg ordered Conagra, Sherwin-Williams and NL Industries to pay out $1.15 billion to replace or maintain lead paint in millions of California homes.
Molumphy’s law firm, Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy, was the lead counsel representing the people of California against the former lead paint manufacturers.