Practices:

• Environment, Energy & Product Regulation
  • California Environmental Law and Policy
    • Green Chemistry
    • Proposition 65
  • Chemicals, Pesticides and Product Regulation
    • Green Chemistry
    • Nanomaterial Regulation
    • Proposition 65
    • Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
  • Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA)

Industries

• Chemicals
• Nanotechnology

Experience

Ann Grimaldi maintains a diverse practice centered on chemical regulation, with a primary focus on California’s Proposition 65 and the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). She has substantial experience defending Proposition 65 lawsuits, including through appeal, and has represented a broad range of entities in Proposition 65 litigation and counseling matters, including chemical manufacturers, consumer product manufacturers, distributors and retailers, and defense companies.

Notable Engagements

• Consumer Defense Group v. Shell Oil, et al., California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate Dist., Div. 3 Case No. G034935 (2006) (unpublished opinion). Following a successful challenge to the complaint, plaintiff’s appeal resulted in a ruling favorable to defendants: entities undertaking remedial activities at contaminated sites generally cannot be liable under the Proposition 65 discharge prohibition, absent allegation that contaminants were contained before or during remediation and then were knowingly discharged by the remediator.
  
• Environmental Law Foundation v. Wykle Research Inc., 134 Cal.App.4^th 60 (2005). Following a successful motion for summary judgment in the trial court, Ms. Grimaldi briefed and argued this appeal, in which the Court of Appeals held that a dental amalgam manufacturer discharged its duty under Proposition 65 to provide mercury warnings to dental patients when it provided Proposition 65 safe harbor warnings on dental amalgam package inserts.
  
• Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation v. Edmund A. Gray Company, 115 Cal.App.4^th 8 (2003). Following a successful motion for summary judgment in the trial court, Ms. Grimaldi briefed and argued this appeal involving the effect of former California Code of Regulations section 12901 on plaintiff’s burden of proving a Proposition 65 violation.

Education

• J.D, University of California Hastings College of the Law, magna cum laude, 1992
• B.S., University of California, 1985

Admitted

• California