In this action under 42 USC 1983, B&G alleged that Embry violated B&G’s free speech rights by suing it under California’s Prop. 65 for failing to include on its packaging the Prop. 65 warning that B&G’s cookies contained acrylamide, a chemical supposedly known to California to cause cancer.  The decision holds that in seeking to enjoin Embry from suing B&G, the suit ran afoul of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.  However, the district court should have given B&G leave to amend to add facts that might show that the first sham exception for objectively baseless litigation applied, saving the suit from the bar of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.