Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Environmental Law
FIFRA Has a Limited Preemptive Impact
Eric H. FoyNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Brazil v. Sara Lee Corp., No. D045925, 2006 WL 181597 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2006), the Court of Appeals the Fourth District of California remanded the decision of the trial court, which sustained the defendant's demurrer without leave to amend. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq., by selling toilet bowl cleaners that damaged plumbing-conduct, the plaintiff asserted, that was in breach of express warranties provided to the public. The trial court held that the plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Background
The plaintiff, a consumer, claimed that the defendant, Sara Lee Corporation (Sara Lee), expressly warranted that Ty-D-Bol toilet cleaners did not harm plumbing. Id. at *1. The plaintiff alleged that in fact the cleaners did cause harm to plumbing components, and that by marketing products that damaged plumbing and breaching its warranties, Sara Lee violated the UCL. Id. Sara Lee demurred to the complaint on the grounds that it was preempted by FIFRA. Id. The trial court held that the plaintiff's claims were preempted by FIFRA because they were premised on defects in federally approved labels, and it sustained the defendant's demurrer without leave to amend. Id.
Arguments
The plaintiff argued that Sara Lee breached an express warranty. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claims were preempted by FIFRA.
Analysis and Holdings
In Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), the United States Supreme Court significantly limited the preemptive impact of FIFRA. Id. It held that while a "successful state breach of warranty claim might cause a manufacturer to alter a federally approved label, such a result did not bring the warranty claim within the scope of FIFRA." Id. In light of Bates and because the plaintiff's claims appeared to have merit, the court remanded the decision to allow the trial court to determine whether the plaintiff should be permitted to substitute a plaintiff who met the standing requirements. Id.
The case was decided on January 26, 2006.