California Appeals Court Grants Stay in Starbucks’ Proposition 65 Civil Penalties Trial
A California appeals court stayed a trial that had been scheduled for this week, to determine penalties in the Proposition 65 case against Starbucks and other defendants for failure to warn for acrylamide in coffee under Proposition 65. It is the latest in the eight year saga of the case, which was filed by Center for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT).
The defense successfully argued that the trial should be delayed, pending the outcome of California’s Proposition 65 rulemaking that would amend the regulations to state that coffee does not require warnings for cancer. The trial court judge had denied the request for a stay last month, holding that a stay was not justified based on a “hypothetical regulation.”
Public comments on the proposed rule were due by August 30, 2018. The court has asked the defense to provide a written status update to the court by January 15, 2019. In the meantime, CERT has filed a suit against California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment in Los Angeles Superior Court to challenge the proposed coffee regulation.