Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 24STCV20661, Date: 2024-11-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV20661 Hearing Date: November 27, 2024 Dept: 31
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31
HEARING DATE: November
27, 2024 TRIAL
DATE: Not set
CASE: Keep America Safe
and Beautiful, in the public interest v. The Himalaya Drug Company, et al.
CASE NO.: 24STCV20661
DEMURRER
WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE
MOVING PARTY: Defendant
Himalaya Wellness USA Limited
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Keep
America Safe and Beautiful, in the public interest
I. BACKGROUND
This is a
Proposition 65 case. On August 15, 2024,
plaintiff Keep America Safe and Beautiful (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against
defendant Himalaya Wellness USA Limited (erroneously sued as The Himalaya Drug
Company) (Himalaya) and Amazon.com Services, LLC (collectively, Defendants),
alleging Defendants failed to comply with Proposition 65 with respect to Himalaya’s
dietary fiber supplement product. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and civil
penalties.
On October
18, 2024, Himalaya filed this demurrer to the complaint.
On November
13, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition.
On November
20, 2024, Himalaya filed a reply.
II. LEGAL
STANDARD
A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint
states a cause of action.¿ (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740,
747.)¿ When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in
context, accepting the alleged facts as true.¿ (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai
Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.)¿ “Because a demurrer
challenges defects on the face of the complaint, it can only refer to matters
outside the pleading that are subject to judicial notice.”¿ (Arce ex rel.
Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471,
556.)¿¿
III. DISCUSSION
A.
Judicial Notice
Himalaya’s requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (d)(1), (h).)
B.
Analysis
Himalaya argues Plaintiff’s action is time-barred. The statute of limitations for an action
seeking civil penalties is one year. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340, subd. (a); Shamsian
v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 967, 978 (Shamsian).) The time begins to run upon the date of
Plaintiff’s discovery of the alleged violation.
(Shamsian, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 978.)
In support, Himalaya points to Plaintiff’s Notice of
Violation which states, in part, that the “violations have been occurring every
day between since at least August 17, 2022, and every day since the products
were introduced into the California marketplace[.]” (Ellis Decl., Ex. A, Request for Judicial
Notice (RJN) 1.) Himalaya argues Plaintiff
knew of the alleged violations as of August 17, 2022. This action was filed more than a year later.
Plaintiff contends the language of the Notice of Violation
does not clearly indicate the violations were discovered on August 17,
2022. Plaintiff further argues that, for
statute of limitations purposes, time is measured from the time of the last
alleged violation. (Consumer Advocacy, Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu
Enterprises of America (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 953, 981 (Kintetsu).)
Here, Plaintiff alleges the Proposition 65 violations are ongoing. (See Complaint, Prayer for Relief.)
The parties focus their energies over the language of
Plaintiff’s Notice of Violation and the application of Shamisian and Kintetsu
to this case. The court need not
resolve these disputes. This is so
because Plaintiff brings a Proposition 65 case seeking civil penalties and injunctive
relief. (See Complaint, Prayer for Relief.) The statute of limitations for
injunctive relief is three years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (a); see
also Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2002) 104
Cal.App.4th 438, 442, fn. 4 [in a Proposition 65 case, noting “[t]he statute of
limitations applicable to claims for statutory penalties and injunctive relief
are, respectively, one and three years.”].) Assuming, for the moment, Plaintiff discovered
the violations on August 17, 2022, this action was filed within the three-year
limitations period applicable to injunctive relief. At least with respect to that claim, this action
is timely. Even if the civil penalties claim is untimely (which the court
declines to address), Himalaya’s demurrer would not dispose of Plaintiff’s
entire cause of action. “A demurrer must
dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained.” (Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007)
148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.)
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
the demurrer is OVERRULED.
Defendant
Himalaya Wellness USA Limited is ordered to serve and file their answer to the
complaint within 10 days of this order.
Plaintiff to give notice.
Dated: November 27,
2024
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry Bensinger Judge of the Superior Court |