SYNGENTA v. PAUL
Filed 4/25/06 Opinion on rehearing
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PAUL E. HELLIKER, as Director, etc., Defendant and Appellant; GUSTAFSON LLC, Real Party in Interest and Appellant. | B175450 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC253673) |
| DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PAUL E. HELLIKER, as Director, etc., Defendant and Appellant. | B175450 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS078342) |
APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dzintra I. Janavs and Gregory C. O'Brien, Judges. Affirmed in part as modified, and reversed in part with directions.
McKenna Long & Aldridge, Stanley W. Landfair, Joseph F. Butler, Robert S. Schuda, Shannon L. Fagan, Michael J. Stiles and Eric S.C. Lindstrom for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Tom Greene, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary E. Hackenbracht, Assistant Attorney General, William S. Abbey and Todd A. Valdes, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant.
Murchison & Cumming, Edmund G. Farrell III, Gina E. Och; Kessler & Collins, Gary S. Kessler and Daniel P. Callahan for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. (Syngenta), developed a substance known as metalaxyl, and Dow Agrosciences LLC (Dow) developed a substance known as oryzalin, both used as active ingredients in pesticides. Syngenta and Dow submitted to the state Department of Pesticide Regulation (the Department)[1] data concerning the health effects and environmental impacts of the active ingredients and obtained certificates of registration from the Department for products containing metalaxyl and oryzalin. Gustafson LLC (Gustafson), a pesticide manufacturer, later obtained registrations from the Department for pesticides containing metalaxyl, and other companies obtained registrations for pesticides containing oryzalin. Although the Department did not actually review data previously submitted to the Department by Syngenta and Dow to support the applications for registration by Gustafson and other subsequent applicants, the Department took into account its prior evaluation of those data in evaluating the later applications. Syngenta challenged the registrations and the Department's practices by filing a complaint and petition for writ of mandate in the superior court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ of mandate, and Dow did the same. Syngenta and Dow allege that in evaluating applications for registration, the Department â€
