Carol R. Brophy

Senior Counsel

Email
vcard

Areas of Work

Government & Regulatory Litigation, Chemicals & Environment, Proposition 65, Environmental, Product, & Mass Tort

Overview

Carol Brophy is a seasoned litigator representing clients in environmental law, administrative law, and state and federal litigation. She represents a wide range of companies in matters involving federal and California laws including Proposition 65, California Unfair Trade Practice (UCL), the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the California Clean Air Act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and other state and local regulations.

Carol's background as both an engineer and an environmental assessor enables her to apply these skills to not only the legal aspects of compliance, but the scientific and technical aspects as well. She has extensive experience developing cost-effective compliance solutions for manufacturers and chemical processors, working both with clients’ in-house technical staff and consulting scientists. Carol also assists multinational companies in meeting the complex product importation, labeling, and formulation requirements imposed by US and international law. She provides assistance to clients in negotiating permit limits and defending compliance orders.

California
US District Court, Central District of California
US District Court, Eastern District of California
US District Court, Northern District of California
US District Court, Southern District of California
US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

J.D., Southwestern University School of Law
M.F.A., Yale University
A.B., Stanford University

Areas of Work

Representative Matters

Obtained multiple dismissals of putative class action claims in New York, Florida and California for manufacturer and several global retail clients alleging that labels on hand sanitizer products were allegedly misleading. Obtained de-certification of a certified class of hand sanitizer consumers, followed by a subsequent denial of attempted re-certification, and ultimately dismissal of all claims with prejudice. Courts have now found that, under controlling precedent in multiple states, the statement on a hand sanitizer product's label that it "kills 99% of germs*" is not misleading in light of information on the product's rear label.
Environmental Research Center v. Aloe Vera, et al. - Obtained verdict after trial that foods and dietary supplements do not require Proposition 65 warnings. The verdict included an award of defense costs of $566,212, which is the largest and most significant defense cost award in the history of Proposition 65.
Brimer v. Giftcraft - Obtained an adjudicated dismissal with prejudice on the eve of trial setting. Case involved Proposition 65 claims of lead and DEHP exposure in various consumer products. Giftcraft had developed dispositive expert and testing evidence that the exposure to the listed chemicals were well below the safe harbor values. In addition, Giftcraft was prepared to defend on statute of limitation and on the ground that the prosecution was in “bad faith” as the plaintiff was aware any alleged violation had been cured prior to filing the initial case.
Held v. Amerisource Bergen - Obtained an adjudicated dismissal with prejudice of Proposition 65 claims that consumers were exposed to DINP in protective gloves. Dismissal was obtained after the court deemed the case complex at Ms. Brophy’s request, who was also seeking to consolidate over a dozen other lawsuits for trial. With the client out of the litigation, the other defendants settled with the plaintiff.
Consumer Advocacy Group v. Big Lots, et al. - Obtained and adjudicated dismissal with prejudice prior to trial, with award of costs. The plaintiff dismissed after the chemical at issue—Diaminotoluene (mixed), used in cosmetics—was removed from the Proposition 65 list.
Delisting of Diaminotoluene (Mixed) from the Proposition 65 list of carcinogenic chemicals. Delisting resulted from a Petition to Reconsider Listing submitted to California’s Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Delisting of a chemical is exceedingly rare, and to our knowledge this action was the first time a chemical has been administratively delisted based on a petition.