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

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

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

APS&EE, LLC VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

., 19STCV26224 July 10, 2020 Plaintiff ASP&EE, LLC’s Motion to Approve Proposition 65 Settlement and Proposed Consent Judgment: the unopposed motion is GRANTED. The court APPROVES the consent judgment between the parties. Background This action concerns alleged violations of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, which is codified in Health and Safety Code, section 25249.5 et seq. (Proposition 65).

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

APS&EE, LLC VS STZ INDUSTRIES, LLC, ET AL.

The motion to approve proposition 65 settlement and consent judgment is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP INC VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

However, Defendant has now demonstrated a prompt willingness to comply with Proposition 65. (Yeroushalmi Decl. ¶ 10.) The deterrent effect that the imposition of the penalty would have on both the violator and the regulated community as a whole. A $5,720 penalty will likely have a notable deterrent effect on Defendant and the regulated community as a whole, as demonstrated by Defendant’s prompt agreement to give Proposition 65 warnings. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP INC VS VALU MART CO

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

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Laura A. Seigle or Elizabeth Allen White

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

APS&EE, LLC VS MAZEL & CO., INC., ET AL.

However, Plaintiff asserts that the civil penalties are reasonable considering Defendant has shown a willingness to comply with Proposition 65 in a manner consistent with prior Proposition 65 consent judgments related to Lead in products that were approved by other Courts and entered in the public interest. (Decl. of Novak ¶16.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to approve and enter consent judgment is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Laura A. Seigle or Elizabeth Allen White

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH VS. LUCKY VITAMIN, LLC, ET AL

Pursuant to and in accordance with Health and Safety Code §25249.7(f)(4), the Court makes the following finding with respect to the Consent Judgments between Plaintiff Center for Environmental Health and Defendants Lucky Vitamin, LLC, Nuts.com, Inc. and Sunfood Corporation: 1, The Consent Judgments ensure compliance with the Proposition 65 warning requirement; 2, The attorney’s fee awards in the Consent Judgments are reasonable under Californian law; and 3, The civil penalty and additional settlement payments

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

CONSUMER PROTECTION GROUP, LLC VS HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC.

The funds will be used to further the purposes of Proposition 65 and are therefore in the interest of the public.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANTHONY FERREIRO AND HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS, USA, INC.

Recovery in a Proposition 65 action may also include attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 10215. 1 Previously known as The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health & SafiCode § 25249.5 et seg‘p,i 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 8. Proposition 65 action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

SUSAN DAVIA VS, BE WICKED, INC., ET AL

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION v TO APPROVE OF PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND ENTER JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT BE WICKED, INC [PLTF] SUSAN DAVIA RULING The court grants Plaintiff‘s unopposed motion to approve Proposition 65 settlement and enter judgment. (Code Civ, Proc‘ §664i6i) Discussion Under section 6646, the court is authorized to approve or disapprove a settlement agreement, but not to modify its terms. (Leeman v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2020

SUSAN DAVIA VS: SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION 7 TO APPROVE PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND ENTER JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES [PLTF] SUSAN DAVIA RULING On January 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Approve Proposition 65 Settlement and to Enter Judgment as to Defendant Southern Technologies LLC, April 3, 2020, was set as the date for a hearing on the matter: The court has not received an Opposition.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

SUSAN DAVIA VS. BE WICKED, INC., ET AL

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: NOTICE OF MOTION — TO APPROVE OF PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND ENTER JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT BE WICKED, INC. [PLTF] SUSAN DAVIA RULING Pursuant to Administrative Order 20-04, the Marin County court facility is physically closed until April 7, 2020, subject to modification at the discretion of the presiding judge. (http://www. marin court. ()rg/rlata/hpnews/Z 78.ndf) This matter is therefore, continued until April 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Department A.

  • Hearing

    Mar 24, 2020

CENTER FOR ADVANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS VS. USA MINISO DEPOT INC. ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Approve Proposition 65 Settlement And Consent JudgmentSet for hearing on the Law and Motion Calendar for Monday, March 16, 2020, line 5. PLAINTIFF CENTER FOR ADVANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS'S Motion To Approve Proposition 65 Settlement And Consent Judgment. Denied without prejudice. Plaintiff has not submitted the proposed consent judgment ("Exhibit A") with its moving papers. Plaintiff may provide the proposed consent judgment to the court at the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

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

The Court sustained 13 Woodstone’s demurrer with leave to amend and sustained the other two demurrers without leave 14 to amend. 15 The FAC sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Civil Code §§ 1953, 16 1927, 1929, 1941 – for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; (2) General Public Injunction under 17 Civil Code §§ 1785.26, 1927, 1929, California Constitution Art. 1, Section 1, Proposition 65; 18 and (3) Violation of Unfair Business Practices Act for Injunctive Relief and/or Restitution. 19

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP INC VS H MART COMPANIES INC ET AL

The Court finds that these warnings comply with Proposition 65.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2020

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC., IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST VS EL MONTE SUPERSTORE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The settlement includes a release of all claims related to Proposition 65 and the covered products. (Id. at pp. 8–10.) Both parties have signed the agreement. The court finds that the settlement agreement is a genuine agreement between the parties, and that the attorneys’ fees and civil penalties amounts are reasonable.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHEFA LMV, INC. VS AREGNTO SC BY SICURA, INC.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to comply with Proposition 65 by failing to provide consumers with clear and reasonable warnings that use of its products will expose them to DEHP. LEGAL STANDARD Proposition 65 provides that “[n]o person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual.” (H&S § 25249.6.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ECOLOGICAL ALLIANCE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS KIDS PREFERRED, LLC, A NEW JERSEY LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Compliance of Warning Proposition 65 states that “No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual, except as provided in Section 25249.10.” (Health & Safety Code § 25249.6.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

EDDIE ELLOIE VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to comply with Proposition 65 by failing to provide consumers with clear and reasonable warnings that use of its products will expose them to DEHP. LEGAL STANDARD Proposition 65 provides that “[n]o person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual.” (H&S § 25249.6.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP INC VS VALU MART CO

Plaintiff’s use of the Additional Settlement Payments will be toward fees of investigation, purchasing and testing for Proposition 65 listed chemicals in various products, expert fees for evaluating exposures through various mediums, the cost of hiring consulting and retaining experts who assist with scientific analysis for files in litigation, administrative costs of investigation and litigation to reduce the public’s exposure to Proposition 65 listed chemicals by notifying responsible persons/entities.

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SAFE PRODUCTS FOR CALIFORNIANS, LLC V. TNT PRO SERIES, LLC, ET AL.

-4 Plaintiff Safe Products for Californians, LLC (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendants TNT Pro Series LLC (“TNT”), Amazon.com and various Does under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, which is also known as Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”). Prop 65, which is codified in Health and Safety Code section 25249.5 et seq., is designed to protect Californians from carcinogens and reproductive toxins.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

SHEFA LMV, INC. VS GINSEY INDUSTRIES, INC.

The Court finds that the above noted warnings and reformulation requirements comply with Proposition 65. (See Consent Judgment § 2.) 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

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

APS&EE, LLC VS EVANSVILLE SHEET METAL WORKS, 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

    Dec 09, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IN THE MATTER OF: BLACKSTONE LAW, APC, ET AL.

CPG contends that Sutton manufactures a product, a fridge pack cooler, that contain the chemical Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (“DEHP”) which is prohibited under Proposition 65 to be distributed/exposed to persons in California without a Proposition 65-compliant warning. (Complaint ¶¶ 13-15.) procedural history CPG filed the Complaint on August 22, 2019, alleging one cause of action for Violation of Proposition 65. The parties signed a Proposed Stipulated Consent Judgment on October 4, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.