In Brazil v. Sara Lee Corp., no. D045925 (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) (Jan. 26, 2006), the Court followed Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc., 129 Cal.App.4th 1228 (2005) in holding that Prop. 64 applies retroactively to pending cases. However, the Court then very carefully held that the case should be remanded for the trial court to determine whether the plaintiff should be allowed leave to amend to substitute an affected plaintiff. In fact, the Court went to the trouble of deciding the substantive preemption issue raised on appeal, which would not have been necessary but for its holding that amendment was possible. (The Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. §§36 et seq.) did not preempt the plaintiff's UCL claim.) Thanks to JS for emailing this opinion.