What is the law surrounding drinking water and toxins?

Useful Rulings on Proposition 65 – Drinking Water and Toxins

Recent Rulings on Proposition 65 – Drinking Water and Toxins

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS KANDYPENS INC.

The People also submit evidence that Kandypens failed to provide any Proposition 65 warnings on the label or on the online product pages for the Rubi or the Feather. (UMF 57, 66.) Kandypens contends that Proposition 65 warnings were not required for either the Rubi or the Feather because they are empty cartridges.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PATTEN VS THE PASTENE COMPANIES LTD

Plaintiff Brad Van Patten's motion to approve a Proposition 65 Consent Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In order to approve the Consent Judgment, the Court is required to make the following findings: "(A) The warning that is required by the settlement complies with this chapter. "(B) The award of attorney's fees is reasonable under California law. "(C) The penalty amount is reasonable based on the criteria set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b)." Health & Safety § 25249.7(f)(4).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PATTEN VS THE PASTENE COMPANIES LTD

Plaintiff Brad Van Patten's motion to approve a Proposition 65 Consent Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In order to approve the Consent Judgment, the Court is required to make the following findings: "(A) The warning that is required by the settlement complies with this chapter. "(B) The award of attorney's fees is reasonable under California law. "(C) The penalty amount is reasonable based on the criteria set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b)." Health & Safety § 25249.7(f)(4).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

APS&EE, LLC VS BEEHIVE PIPE PRODUCTS, LLC, ET AL.

The Court finds that the above noted warnings and reformulation requirements comply with Proposition 65. Civil Penalties After ensuring that the consent judgment complies with Proposition 65's terms, the Court must determine whether the assessed penalty is reasonable per Health & Safety Code § 25249.7(b)(2).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

APS&EE, LLC VS SPEEDY METALS, LLC

19STCV42657 APS&EE, LLC vs SPEEDY METALS, LLC Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Proposition 65 Settlement and Consent Judgment TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. The court sets a Case Management Conference for October 30, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

AS YOU SOW V. NESTLE HEALTHCARE NUTRITION, INC., ET AL.

Nestle states that under the first 27 defense, a warning is not required unless the lead exposure level exceeds a certain threshold 28 level, and under the second defense, naturally occurring levels of chemicals in foods are exempt 1 from Proposition 65 and do not count towards the exposure level.

  • Hearing

CENTER FOR ADVANCED PUBLIC AWARENESS VS. PARIS PRESENTS, INC.

Recovery in 3 Proposition 65 action may also include attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. 1 Previously known as The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health & SafCode, § 25249.5 et seg.,1 and commonly referred to as “the act” or “Proposition 65,” — California Health and Safety Code section 25249,7(f)(4) requires judicial approval of the settlement between private parties of a Proposition 65 action.

  • Hearing

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP INC VS VALU MART CO

of their statutorily required Proposition 65 oversight functions.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP INC VS VIVA 99 ET AL

A court may approve a settlement in a Proposition 65 action only if the court makes all of the following findings: (1) the warning that is required by the settlement complies with Proposition 65’s requirements as set forth in section 25249.6; (2) the award of attorney’s fees is reasonable under California law; (3) the penalty amount is reasonable based on the criteria set forth in section 25249.7, subdivision (b)(2). (Health & Saf. Code section 25249.7, subd. (f)(4).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP INC VS VALU MART CO

Section 2.2. stated Defendant would pay $125,000 “to Attorney for consulting services rendered” and that the payment was for “reimbursement for past and current consultant services rendered advising Soofer on compliance issues related to Proposition 65 and environmental laws in the interest of the public.” (Id. at ¶ 32, Ex. A at p. 2.) Plaintiff and Yeroushalmi agreed not to pursue any alleged Proposition 65 allegations against Defendant so long as it agreed to monitor its food products. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MCGILL V. ON-SITE AKA ON-SITE MANAGER, INC., ET AL.

The court sustained 12 Woodstone’s demurrer with leave to amend and sustained the other two demurrers without leave 13 to amend. 14 The FAC set forth the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Civil Code §§ 1953, 15 1927, 1929, 1941 – for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; (2) General Public Injunction under 16 Civil Code §§ 1785.26, 1927, 1929, California Constitution Art. 1, Section 1, Proposition 65; 17 and (3) Violation of Unfair Business Practices Act for Injunctive Relief and/or Restitution. 18

  • Hearing

CENTER FOR ADVANCED PUBLIC AWARENESS VSR PARIS PRESENTS, INC.

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION 7 TO APPROVE PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENT [PLTF] CENTER FOR ADVANCED PUBLIC AWARENESS RULl'NG The filed declaration of Kimberly Gates in this case is unsigned. It appears to the court that there is a significant typographical error on page 3, limit? of this unsigned declaration. Additionally, the caption of the proposed judgment includes the wrong defendant. These are errors observed by the court after a cursory review of the pleadings.

  • Hearing

ROMERO V. LGC NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 67, the plaintiff-oil companies filed a declaratory relief suit against a Proposition 65 enforcer, seeking to declare that the notices of violation themselves were invalid due to failure to comply with Proposition 65 regulations. And, in CKE Restaurants, Inc. v. Moore (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 262, 267, a Carl’s Jr. franchisee received a notice of violation and subsequently filed a declaratory relief complaint directly.

  • Hearing

MARIA DE JESUS DOMINGUEZ VS DOES 1 THROUGH 100

In the “Regulatory Information” section, along with information relating to federal regulations and the regulations of several U.S. states and foreign jurisdictions, the MSDS contains representations regarding California regulation Proposition 65. (Id. at 5.)

  • Hearing

MATEEL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION VS ALFRED, INC.

Significantly, the Proposition 65 regulations explicitly state that “a settlement with little or no penalty may be appropriate.” (11 Cal. Code Regs., § 3203(a).) Plaintiff asserts that, although Defendants deny any violation of Proposition 65, Defendants have agreed to either change the kombucha-dispensing equipment to reduce the lead content in the kombucha or to provide specific warnings. (Motion, p. 7:5-9.)

  • Hearing

APS&EE, LLC VS SWINSTAR, INC.

Health & Safety Code § 24259.7(f) governs the role of the court in approving settlements and consent judgments for private actions to enforce Proposition 65.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ECOLOGICAL ALLIANCE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS KUREHA AMERICA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Further, Plaintiff argues that “in light of Plaintiff's allegations that the Covered Products contain Proposition-65 listed chemicals and that Proposition 65 warnings were not given prior to service of the 60-Day Notices, the Settlement remedies these alleged violations in a manner that the implementing regulations presume to provide a significant public benefit: the provision of clear and reasonable warnings to California consumers.” (Id. at p. 7:11-15.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WARNER VS. FRY'S ELECTRONICS

Similarly, under the similar citizen-suit provisions of Proposition 65, a settlement may bar the claims of other private plaintiffs, yet the statute does not require that those other plaintiffs receive notice. (Consumer Advocacy Group v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 675.)

  • Hearing

CHENG VS KENNEY MANUFACTURING INC

The court is prepared to sign the Order Approving Proposition 65 Settlement and Judgment Approving Prop 65 Settlement submitted with the moving papers.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHENG VS LINCOLN PRODUCTS INC

Although the amount of penalty is relatively minimal, it serves to remind defendant and the public that they must comply with Proposition 65. Under these circumstances, the Court finds the penalty to be reasonable. THEREFORE, the motion to approve Proposition 65 Settlement is GRANTED. The Court approves and adopts the proposed Order and Judgment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHEFA LMV, INC. VS HENKLE CORPORATION, ET AL.

(b) Recovery of civil penalties (75% of which must be provided to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) serves the purpose and intent of Proposition 65. Accordingly, civil penalties shall not be "traded" for payments of attorney's fees.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KIM EMBRY VS GLENDALE HOOKAH LOUNGE

That address is different from the Oakland address designated on the Attorney General’s website for receipt of Proposition 65 motions, supporting papers, and exhibits, namely: “Proposition 65 Enforcement Reporting, Attention: Prop 65 Coordinator, 1515 Clay Street, Suite 2000, Post Office Box 70550, Oakland, California 94612-0550.” (Proposition 65 Enforcement Reporting, https://oag.ca.gov/prop65.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SHEFA LMV, INC. VS STEVE MADDEN, LTD.

The parties have since reached a Proposition 65 settlement agreement (Consent Judgment). (Greenbaum Decl., Exh 2.) Plaintiff now submits the parties’ Consent Judgment to this Court for approval. Legal Standard Pursuant to Proposition 65, any business that exposes individuals to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm must provide those individuals with a clear and reasonable warning. (Health & Saf. Code § 25249.6.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC. VS THE KROGER CO., ET AL.

Factual Background Proposition 65 imposes warning requirements of the presence of certain chemicals identified by the State of California. The instant action arises out of allegations that Defendants distributed and sold sea-weed snacks which contained Cadmium, but which failed to include the required Proposition 65 warning.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC. VS THE KROGER CO., ET AL.

Factual Background Proposition 65 imposes warning requirements of the presence of certain chemicals identified by the State of California. The instant action arises out of allegations that Defendants distributed and sold sea-weed snacks which contained Cadmium, but which failed to include the required Proposition 65 warning.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 30     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.