On April 13, 2021 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Espinoza, Gabriel,
and
Wells Lamont, Llc,
for OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
oe YN DH RB WN
N ee a aa
BRRREBERBRRBEGESWTREAEBERAS
/
Evan J. Smith, Esquire (SBN 242352)
Ryan P. Cardona, Esquire (SBN 302113)
BRODSKY SMITH
9595 Wilshire Bivd., Ste. 900 E
Beverly Hills, CA 90212 San Francisco Count ric
Telephone: (877) 534-2590 'Y Superior Court
Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 AUG 11 2021
Attorneys for Plaintiff CLERK 9F i 2 RT
BY: “
puty Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
GABRIEL ESPINOZA, Case No.: CGC-21-590972
Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING
PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND
v. CONSENT JUDGMENT
WELLS LAMONT, LLC, Judge: Ethan P. Schulman
Dept.: 302
Defendant. Hearing Date: August 11, 2021
Hearing Time: 9:30 AM
Reservation #:
Plaintiff Gabriel Espinoza and defendant Wells Lamont, LLC have agreed to the terms of
the settlement memorialized in the [Proposed] Consent Judgment attached as Exhibit A to the
Declaration of Evan J. Smith in Support of Motion to Approve Proposition 65 Settlement and
Consent Judgment lodged herewith, and Plaintiff has moved this Court for an Order approving
the settlement.
After consideration of the papers submitted and the arguments presented, the Court finds
that the settlement agreement set forth in the Consent Judgment meets the criteria established by
California Health & Safety Code § 25249.7(f)(4), in that:
1. The injunctive relief required by the Consent Judgment complies with
Proposition 65;
2. The reimbursement of fees and costs provided by the Consent Judgment is
reasonable under California law; and
-1-
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROP. 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT
JUDGMENToe ND A FF YN
N Nt ee se Se Se ee oe
BRRRRERBRRSE Se WTRBREBERE SY
3. The civil penalty amount to be paid pursuant to the Consent Judgment is
reasonable.
Accordingly, the Motion for Approval of the Proposition 65 Settlement is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: fas /), PUY
hUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
ETHAN P. SCHULMAN
-2-
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROP. 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT
JUDGMENT
Document Filed Date
August 11, 2021
Case Filing Date
April 13, 2021
Category
OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
oe YN DH RB WN N ee a aa BRRREBERBRRBEGESWTREAEBERAS / Evan J. Smith, Esquire (SBN 242352) Ryan P. Cardona, Esquire (SBN 302113) BRODSKY SMITH 9595 Wilshire Bivd., Ste. 900 E Beverly Hills, CA 90212 San Francisco Count ric Telephone: (877) 534-2590 'Y Superior Court Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 AUG 11 2021 Attorneys for Plaintiff CLERK 9F i 2 RT BY: “ puty Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO GABRIEL ESPINOZA, Case No.: CGC-21-590972 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND v. CONSENT JUDGMENT WELLS LAMONT, LLC, Judge: Ethan P. Schulman Dept.: 302 Defendant. Hearing Date: August 11, 2021 Hearing Time: 9:30 AM Reservation #: Plaintiff Gabriel Espinoza and defendant Wells Lamont, LLC have agreed to the terms of the settlement memorialized in the [Proposed] Consent Judgment attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Evan J. Smith in Support of Motion to Approve Proposition 65 Settlement and Consent Judgment lodged herewith, and Plaintiff has moved this Court for an Order approving the settlement. After consideration of the papers submitted and the arguments presented, the Court finds that the settlement agreement set forth in the Consent Judgment meets the criteria established by California Health & Safety Code § 25249.7(f)(4), in that: 1. The injunctive relief required by the Consent Judgment complies with Proposition 65; 2. The reimbursement of fees and costs provided by the Consent Judgment is reasonable under California law; and -1- [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROP. 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENToe ND A FF YN N Nt ee se Se Se ee oe BRRRRERBRRSE Se WTRBREBERE SY 3. The civil penalty amount to be paid pursuant to the Consent Judgment is reasonable. Accordingly, the Motion for Approval of the Proposition 65 Settlement is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: fas /), PUY hUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ETHAN P. SCHULMAN -2- [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROP. 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENT