Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.: Lawyer with Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley A Professional Corporation

Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

View Thomas H. Clarke, Jr. 's Martindale-Hubbell Connected Profile
Phone(415) 543-4800

Peer Rating
 5.0/5.0
AV® Preeminent

Client Rating

Featured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer IconFeatured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer Icon
Printer Friendly VersionEmail this PageDownload to My Outlook ContactsAdd lawyer to My FavoritesCompare this lawyer to other lawyers in your favorites

Experience & Credentials Ratings & ReviewsOther Offices
 

Practice Areas

  • Business and Commercial Litigation
  • Class Action/Complex Litigation
  • Environmental
  • Toxic Tort
  • Proposition 65
  • Product Liability
  • Real Estate
  • Unfair Business Practices
  • Technology
  • Chemical & Biotechnology
  • Engineering
  • Financial Services
  • Food & Beverage
  • Government Agencies
  • Manufacturing
  • Media & Advertising
  • Oil & Gas
 
University University of California, Berkeley, B.A., 1967; George Washington University, M.S. in Environmental Science, 1979
 
Law SchoolUniversity of California, Berkeley Boalt School of Law, J.D., 1970
 
Admitted1971, California; 1978, District of Columbia; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Supreme Court of the United States
 
Memberships 

Memberships & Associations

•State Bar of California
•Washington, D.C. Bar Association

 
Biography

Experience

For up-to-date information, check my blog, Ear To The Ground

Thomas H. Clarke, Jr., joined RMKB in 1991 and is Chair of the firm's Environmental Practice Group. He is AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell and has been listed for several years in Northern California Super Lawyers magazine.

Mr. Clarke has over 35 years of experience with virtually all aspects of environmental counseling and litigation. He has represented, among others, major industrial and service companies, commercial and residential property owners, operators, and developers, trucking companies, and financial institutions. Mr. Clarke's environmental practice encompasses both state and federal litigation and regulatory actions involving CERCLA, RCRA, CEQA, Porter-Cologne Act, Proposition 65, underground storage tanks, toxic torts, hazardous wastes and substances, environmental nuisance and trespass, environmental assessments and taxes, landfill permitting and closures, and transactional matters pertaining to real property sales and development. Mr. Clarke also represents companies in unfair business practice, false advertising, and Consumer Legal Remedy Act litigation.

Mr. Clarke has been published extensively in various trade and legal journals, including U.S. Business Litigation, For the Defense, Mortgage Banking, The REIT Report, Facility Management Journal, Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, California Real Estate Journal, The National Law Journal, and the Daily Journal. He has been quoted in a number of daily and business publications, such as The Wall Street Journal Online, East Bay Business Times, Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Daily Journal, among others, and has lectured on environmental and toxic tort matters, constitutional law, data privacy, and business risk, including at the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Prior to joining RMKB, Mr. Clarke served as Principal Consultant (Chief of Staff) to the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice from 1973 through 1976, and from 1977 through 1980, he worked for President Carter in the Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

Mr. Clarke obtained his B.A. degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1967, J.D. from Boalt Hall School of Law in 1970, and M.S. degree in Environmental Science from George Washington University in 1979.

Publications

•Ignorance is Risk: Response Options to NSA Monitoring Of Attorney-Client Communications, Part 2
LexisNexis' Legal Newsroom Litigation - July 24, 2013
Lael D. Andara, Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Ignorance Is Risk: Impact of NSA Monitoring Technologies On Attorney-Client Communications, Part 1
LexisNexis' Legal Newsroom Litigation - July 23, 2013
Lael D. Andara, Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
What obligations require attorneys to protect their client communications, and what practical steps can be taken to meet statutory and ethical obligations related to confidentiality? Is there a real risk, or is the risk limited to action movies? Read Part 1 of Ignorance is Risk below.

•Limited Sampling Indicates The Reasonable Possibility of Ubiquitous Exposure To The Phthalate DEHP In The U.S. Population
ComplianceOnline - May 29, 2013
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
Developing a new defense strategy for a Proposition 65 case in California, the authors undertook a variety of QA/QC procedures to be assured that their test results regarding exposure to DEHP [Toxnet, 2012A] from the consumer product at issue had precision and validity.

•Attempt to Fix Prop. 65 Misguided
The Daily Journal - March 19, 2013
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
Partner Thomas H. Clarke, Jr. published the article Attempt to fix Prop.

•The Flaws of Prop. 65 Litigation
The Recorder - May 30, 2012
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
Environmental Practice Group Chair and Partner Thomas H. Clarke, Jr. authored an article exploring the technical problems presented by Proposition 65 product testing - an undertaking that aims to determine whether consumers have been exposed to an unhealthy amount of a listed chemical.

•Under Cover
Best's Review - February 1, 2012
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr., Dean A. Pappas
Environmental Practice Group Chair and Partner Thomas H. Clarke, Jr. co-authored an article with Partner Dean Pappas discussing the insurance implications and business opportunities of hydrofracturing - more commonly referred to as fracking, the controversial oil and gas practices that has been making waves in the media as of late.

•Defending Prop. 65
Law 360 - September 9, 2011
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
Environmental Practice Group Chair and Partner Tom Clarke co-authored Proposing A Plan For Prop. 65 which was published on Law360's website, the article reviews how to develop a defense strategy in Proposition 65 litigation involving consumer products.

•Environmental & Toxic Tort Update - Issue 6August 17, 2011
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Stormwater Liability Increases for Public Entities
San Francisco Daily Journal - April 28, 2011
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
Partner Thomas Clarke, Jr.'s article, Stormwater Liability Increases for Public Entities, examines the recent 9th Circuit opinion holding governmental entities liable for stormwater discharge regardless of the origin of the contaminants.

•Public Entities That Own Stormwater Systems Have to Treat Stormwater Before it is Discharged
Public CEO - April 20, 2011
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
Partner Thomas Clarke, Jr.'s article in Public CEO, Public Entities That Own Stormwater Have to Treat Stormwater Before It is Discharged, examines the latest in stormwater regulations and discusses how public entities should follow current stormwater guidelines in the most economical way.

•Environmental & Toxic Tort Update - Issue 5March 15, 2011
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Environmental & Toxic Tort Update - Issue 4April 9, 2010
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Beware of Fake Remedies Sold as Dietary Supplements
Drug Topics: Viewpoint - September 9, 2009
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
It is illegal for a manufacturer, promoter, or seller of a dietary supplement to claim, even implicitly, that a dietary supplement will treat or cure illness or disease, or their symptoms; there are few exceptions to this rule.

•Environmental & Toxic Tort Update - Issue 3August 25, 2009
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Environmental & Toxic Tort Update - Issue 2March 15, 2009
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Environmental & Toxic Tort Update - Issue 1June 12, 2008
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•At Writs End
Daily Journal - April 7, 2008
Terry Anastassiou, Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Murky Waters
San Francisco Daily Journal - September 12, 2007
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
Can you make more than tea or coffee from the impurities that flow from the tap? Yes, if the target is a polluter. Probably not, however, if the target is your drinking-water provider.

•Civilian Workplace Protection for Members of the Uniformed Services
Employee Relations Law Journal - April 17, 2006
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•An Exaggerated And Ill-Conceived Sense Of Risk: The Ephemeral Nature Of California's Prosposition 65
Washington Legal Foundation - January 1, 2006
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Business Law Report - Issue 2November 2, 2004
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr., Elise R. Vasquez

•Beware of Clever Metaphors
ACCA Docket - April 1, 2004
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Common Misconceptions About Discrimination Against Military Reservists And Members Of The National GuardMarch 22, 2004
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Business Law ReportOctober 29, 2003
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Beware Clever Metaphors! Eliminate Humor. California Cases Tells Advertisers to STOP!
Law Fuel.com - August 13, 2003
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

• Illinois V. Telemarketing Associates-A Radical Increase In First Amendment Protection For Commercial Speech
SF Daily Journal - June 9, 2003
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr. {newlineOn May 5, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Illinois v. Telemarketing Associates, 2003 DJDAR 4867. The case radically transforms the First Amendment protection provided to commercial speech, a subject which many observers had believed would be addressed by the court in the just-argued case of Nike v.

•Mold: The New Hot Spore
Claims Magazine - April 27, 2003
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr., Kevin P. Cody
For the plaintiff's bar, mold is big business today. The media, ever attracted by the unusual and extreme, publish each unfounded and absurd claim, giving the impression that mold is a serious problem for the general population.

•Case Limits Section 17200 Remedy To Injunctive Relief
Daily Journal - April 14, 2003
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
On March 3, the California Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited opinion in Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2003 DJDAR 2291 (Cal.

•Kasky v. NikeMarch 1, 2003
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
On behalf of two European media companies we filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in which we argued that the interpretation of Section 17500 B & PC by the California Supreme Court seriously interfered with the European Union's requirements that companies report on social, environmental, and ethical issues in their annual reports.

•Court Ruling Ushers in Brave New World
Silicon Valley Bisiness Ink - May 31, 2002
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
Companies might puff a bit when it comes to describing their products or services. And consumers are rarely confused when they see the resulting advertisements or public relations blitzes.

•The Environmental Self-Audit Quagmire
Environmental Health & Safety Products - May 20, 2002
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Proposition 65: An Overview
RMKB News Letter - February 20, 2001
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Litigation Targets
SF Daily Journal - February 16, 2001
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Green Federalism
The Adviser - November 5, 1999
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•The California Toxics Rule
RMKB Report - November 4, 1999
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Is Prop 65 Bad for Business?
The Recorder - November 16, 2012
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
Attorney Thomas H. Clarke, Jr. published the article Is Prop 65 Bad for Business? in The Recorder. In the article, Clarke argues that Proposition 65, which regulates chemicals in consumer products in California, imposes uncertainty on businesses and may result in negative business outcomes due to vagueness in the regulation about when a chemical exposure has occurred that triggers its warning requirements.

•You Know it is a Tax Scam When ...
Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal - April 15, 2005
Terry Anastassiou, Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Will Free Speech be Cowed?
The National Law Journal - April 28, 2003
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Case Alert: Exceedances of an MCL Do Not a Toxic Tort MakeSeptember 14, 2007
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

News

•LexisNexis Litigation Resource Center Podcast: Thomas Clarke on Substances on the Toxic Tort Horizon
LexisNexis Communities - May 12, 2011
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
Thomas H. Clarke was featured in the LexisNexis Communities podcast where he discusses issues surrounding bisphenol-A, bisphenol AF, Chinese drywall and formaldehyde.

•Framers Wanted Commerce Under Federal Control
San Francisco Daily Journal - Letters to the Editor - July 7, 2009
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•The New York Times, Science SectionDecember 18, 2007
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
Re Laws of Nature, Source Unknown (Dec.

•Major Victory for Water Companies in water Contamination Case
Penn Well -- Water Word Online - October 4, 2007
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

•Pomona City Yard Polluted - Test underway to determine severity
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin - August 7, 2003
By Monica Rodriguez
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr., the City of Pamona's environmental lawyer, said the city has taken the bit and spared no expense and will move as quickly as it possibly can to address the problem.

•Supreme Court to take up Nike and free speech; S.F. activist sued, saying firm lied about working conditions,
San Francisco Chronicle - January 11, 2003
By Bob Egelko
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
San Francisco attorney Tom Clarke, who represents the Council of PR Firms, said the state court's definition of commercial speech -- or advertising -- was so broad that virtually no one with a financial motive is protected -- for example, an author promoting a book, or a politician or interest group raising funds.

•Proposition 65 - What You Do Not Know Will Hurt Your Business
Smart Business - August 2, 2013
Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
RMKB Partner Thomas Clarke Jr. was interviewed by Smart Business, in the article Proposition 65 - What You Do Not Know Will Hurt Your Business. (Also at Redwood City Office)

 
Reported CasesRepresentative Experience; Issues; Venue; Client Type; Practice Areas; Full Description; Result; False Advertising; 17500 San Mateo County Superior Court Defendant Auto Auction Company Business And Commercial Litigation Defended an auto action company in a 17200/17500 action. The court found in favor of our client and neither injunctive relief nor restitution was granted. Proposition 65, Nail Polish San Francisco County Superior Court Defendant Cosmetics Manufacturer Proposition 65, Toxic Tort Defended a cosmentics manufacturer in a suit involving allegations regarding solvents used in nail polish. Following laboratory tests attesting to the exposure to retail customers and employees of nail salons, we negotiated the elimination of the warning requirement from our client's products covered by a prior settlement negotiated by another law firm. CERCLA USDC: Central District of California Defendant Chemical Manufacturer Environmental Defended a chemical manufacturer in a private CERCLA action. Our client was the generator of allegedly hazardous substances deposited at a licensed liquid waste disposal facility now owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to obtain moneys from generators to fund the closure of the facility. We were key in organizing a joint defense committee to oppose this questionable action. The plaintiff, which had signed a consent decree with state regulators several years previously to close the site, sought approximately $10 million in response costs. Sucessfully entered into a very favorable de minimis settlement. False Advertising; 17500 San Francisco County Superior Court Defendants Health Food Manufacturer Business And Commercial Litigation Defended a health food manufacturer in a 17200/17500 action. Our clients were two manufacturers of ginseng products accused of mislabeling in violation of Federal Law in a case with over 150 defendants. Negotiated a de minimis settlement with no admission of wrongdoing. Over half of the defendants are still in litigation 2 years later. CERCLA; RCRA USDC: Central District of California Defendant Dry Cleaning Company Environmental, Real Estate Defended the past owners of a dry cleaning business at a shopping center purchased by a vulture investor in a CERCLA action. Following an extensive mediation, we negotiated a very favorable settlement that imposed the vast majority of the clean-up on the investor, who had bought the property at a significant discount from market value. Personal Injury; Toxic Tort Los Angeles County Superior Court Defendant Municipallity Catastrophic/Personal Injury, Environmental, Real Estate, Toxic Tort Currently defending a municipality in a personal injury and property damage matter composed of six coordinated cases involving 1,138 plaintiffs. Our client is one of two defendants accused of being the cause of the alleged harm. The matter involves, among other accusations, contamination of drinking water resources in the Pomona region of Southern California. The matter currently is in litigation. Following extensive motions, the Superior Court dismissed 26 of the plaintiff's 28 courses of action against our client. Recently, the court ruled in favor of our client and dismissed the entire case. The plaintiffs have appealed. Proposition 65 San Francisco County Superior Court Defendant Tool Manufacturer Business And Commercial Litigation, Proposition 65, Toxic Tort Defended a tool manufacturer in a Proposition 65 case involving allegations regarding PVC handles which supposedly contained lead. Successfully demonstrated that the products that the plaintiff had tested were forgeries of our client's products, and further that the handles of our client's products were lead-free. The case was dismissed. Unfair Business Practice; 17200 San Francisco County Superior Court Defendant Importer Business And Commercial Litigation Defended an importer in 17200 actions in which our client was accused of selling two products in violation of state standards, as well as employing unfair business practices. Successfully demonstrated that there were no violations, and thus, the cases were dismissed. Proposition 65 San Francisco County Superior Court Defendant Manufacturer Business And Commercial Litigation, Proposition 65, Toxic Tort Defended a manufacturer against an allegation that involved solvents used in glue. Successfully demonstrated that the exposure level to consumers from our client's products was below the Proposition 65 threshold. The matter was dismissed. False Advertising; 17500 Los Angeles County Superior Court Defendant Pest Control Companies Environmental Defended nine pest control companies in actions in Northern and Southern California. Our client was accused of fraudulent advertising related to environmentally sensitive pest control services. Successfully negotiated a de minimus settlement for our clients. Proposition 65; Asbestos Los Angeles County Superior Court Defendant Pest Control Company Asbestos, Proposition 65, Toxic Tort Defended a pest control company against a Proposition 65 lawsuit by a local citizen's group which alleged the release of hazardous asbestos fibers inside a school building. Successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff's analysis of the asbestos release did not document a violation of any applicable state or federal standards or guidelines. Additionally, we were able to demonstrate that the property owner was at fault for the release due to its failure to post warning signs mandated by state and federal law so that such release could be avoided by service providers, such as our client. The case was dismissed. Water Pollution Regional Water Quality Control Board Administrative Action Defendant Industrial Company Environmental Represented a major industrial company in a Regional Water Quality Board administrative enforcement action pertaining to the multi-million dollar clean-up of an abandoned sulfur mine located near San Francisco Bay. The mine was located on property previously owned by a corporate subsidiary of our client. Following contested administrative hearings, we succeeded in having the designation of discharger (responsible party) reversed on an appeal to the State Water Resources Control Board. First Amendment United States Supreme Court Media Companies Business And Commercial Litigation, International On behalf of two European media companies we filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in which we argued that the interpretation of Section 17500 B.&P.C. by the California Supreme Court seriously interfered with the European Union's requirements that companies report on social, environmental, and ethical issues in their annual reports. The brief may be found at this link: Kasky v. Nike ; Unfair Business Practice; 17200 Contra Costa County Superior Court Defendant Consumer Goods Manufacturer Business And Commercial Litigation Successfully defended a consumer goods manufacturer in a case related to claims of unfair business practices in the sale of personal care products. The matter was dismissed. Proposition 65 Defendant Trade Group Business And Commercial Litigation, Proposition 65, Toxic Tort Represented a trade group of 15 companies in a Proposition 65 case involving allegations of silicates. In conjunction with the Attorney General, we obtained a favorable ruling from the Court of Appeals, which rejected an attempt by a private party bounty hunter to intervene. We settled the matter, and a de minimis payment was made to plaintiff. Unfair Business Practices; Unfair Competition California Court of Appeal, First District Defendant Food & Catering Enterprise Business And Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property Represented a food and catering enterprise in an Unfair Business Practice Act matter involving allegations of trade name infringement, unfair competition and Lanham Act violations. Obtained a defense jury verdict. Personal Injury Los Angeles County Superior Court Defendant Manufacturer Catastrophic/Personal Injury, Real Estate, Toxic Tort Currently represent one of several dozen defendants accused of contributing to contamination of drinking water aquifiers in the San Gabriel Valley of Southern California in a personal injury and property damage matter that is composed of six conslidated cases involving several thousand plaintiffs. The matter is currently in litigation, and will go to trial in 2005. CERCLA USDC: Eastern District of California Defendant Connecticut Court Receiver Environmental Represented the Connecticut court receiver that was charged with administering the assets of a decedent's trusts in a CERCLA and injunctive relief action. The decedent was the owner of a business enterprise that allegedly discharged solvents having a major impact on drinking water supplies in Chico, California. The State sought $20 + million in response costs related to the two sites allegedly contaminated. By summary judgment motion, the receiver was held not responsible for one of the two sites at issue. A settlement was reached on the second site pursuant to which the receivership was not required to pay any moneys. CERCLA USDC: Northern District of California Defendant Owner Advertising Injury, Environmental, Real Estate Represented the owner, who was fraudulently induced to acquire real estate for development, in an environmental matter involving litigation against both the seller and those persons who caused the contamination. We also represented the owner in an administrative enforcement action brought by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In the latter administrative action, our client was deemed secondarily liable, thus imposing the clean-up obligation on the other parties. Following our filing of a motion for summary judgment in the litigation against the other parties, one of the two defendants conceded liability. The District Court then subsequently ruled in favor of our client regarding the liability of the second defendant, and further granted rescission of the sales transaction based upon fraud. The case was ultimately settled with a very substantial payment made to our client. Unfair Business Practices San Francisco County Superior Court Plaintiffs Group of Chinese-Americans Business And Commercial Litigation, Class Action/Complex Litigation, Healthcare Represented a group of five Chinese-Americans who were the purchasers of a pill which contained calcium combined with a oxidized form of Vitamin C. Our clients were class representatives in an Unfair Business Practices and Consumer Legal Remedies class action against a company that advertised extensively in the Chinese-American community regarding the product. The radio, television, and print media advertisements asserted that the product would provide several dozen benefits, including protecting the intelligence, increasing the I.Q. and perfecting the structure of the cerebral tissue of children, healing a herniated disk,curing edema and osteoporosis, providing more energy, healing cartilage, tendons, and muscles, eliminating virtually every ache and pain known to humankind, and not interfering with any prescription drug. All of the claims were false. The case settled following the first day of trial. Pursuant to the settlement, all consumers were entitled to seek reimbursement of their outlays for the purchase of the product. CERCLA; RCRA USDC: Northern District of California & Contra Costa County Superior Court Plaintiff Land Fill Operator Environmental, Real Estate Represented a solid and hazardous waste landfill against thirty generators and transporters of solid and hazardous wastes in a complex federal CERCLA and RCRA action which was accompanied by a parallel state court action. The landfill was prevented by the actions of various local governmental entities and waste haulers from raising moneys through its rates to satisfy the Federal and state requirements for posting financial assurances related to its closure and post-closure costs. The action was filed after the EPA and state regulators threatened to file an administrative enforcement action against the landfill if it did not provide the required financial assurances. The case was politically charged and received a substantial amount of attention in the press. The case settled, and a $30 million premium was paid for a complex combination of insurance policies which were literally negotiated from scratch and provided the requisite state and federal assurances and funded all closure and past-closure activities for the next 35 years. Clean Air Act USDC: Northern District of California Defendant Circuit Board Manufacturer Business And Commercial Litigation, Environmental Represented a local air pollution control district in litigation against the U.S. Army for creating severe air pollution in the Monterey Bay area during the course of alleged remedial activities to remove unexploded ordnance at Ford Ord. The matter was ultimately settled with the Army agreeing to stringent burn-control procedures. Proposition 65; Lead; Food Alameda Superior Court Defendant Food Manufacturer and Wholesaler Environmental Represented a food manufacturer and wholesaler of a unique food product in a matter in which the plaintiff alleged that consumers were exposed to lead from ingestion of the food product. Successfully demonstrated that the food product was not contaminated with lead from the production process, and the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case. False Advertising, Unfair Business Practices, Organic, Cosmetics, Natural, Certification, Federal Preemption, FDA, USDA San Francisco District Court Defendant French Certifier of Organic Cosmetics Business And Commercial Litigation Dr. Bronner's Magic Soups sued Ecocert, a French company that certified natural and organic cosmetic products pursuant to a standard approved by the French Government, and numerous cosmetic companies in a complaint that alleged that the cosmetic companies claimed that their products were organic when they allegedly were not. The plaintiff alleged that Ecocert's certification standard was misleading although it was publicly available and approved by the French Government. Following numerous attempts to state a valid cause of action, the California Superior Court dismissed the case on the grounds that plaintiff lacked standing to bring the claims. The plaintiff thereafter filed a Lanham Act claim in Federal court which made the same types of allegations made in state court. Ecocert's position throughout was that it certified products based on a life-cycle assessment of a firm's cosmetic ingredients, and that it certified products pursuant to a publicly available standard, approved by the French Government, which was posted on the web in a multitude of languages, including English. The state court case was dismissed after the plaintiff was given numerous opportunities to amend its complaint to attempt to state a valid claim, due to its lack of standing to bring the claim. In essence, Dr. Bronner was unable to show that it was harmed in any manner that would allow it relief under California State law. In federal court, the case was dismissed as to Ecocert on two grounds: a) Federal preemption (U.S.D.A. administered a national organic program that occupied the regulatory arena), and b) Ecocert and Dr. Bronner were not competitors, as required to state a claim under the Lanham Act. In addressing the publicity that arose from the litigation, RMKB also assisted in helping the public to understand that plaintiff's goal was to impose its view of what an organic standard should upon the rest of the commercial world, a standard that did not reflect the views of governmental regulations or most consumers.
 
ISLN908353116
 


View Ratings & Reviews
Profile Visibility
#440 in weekly profile views out of 19,375 lawyers in San Francisco, California
#40,046 in weekly profile views out of 1,512,663 total lawyers Overall

Office Information

Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.

150 Spear Street, Suite 850
San FranciscoCA 94105




Loading...
 

Professional Networking for Legal Professionals Only

Quickly and easily expand your professional
network - join the premier global network for legal professionals only. It's powered by the
Martindale-Hubbell database - over 1,000,000 lawyers strong.
Join Now