Preview
UAC
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jan-13-2012 3:53 pm
Case Number: CGC-11-516586
Filing Date: Jan-13-2012 3:51
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03453192
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
ANTHONY E HELD VS. TWO'S COMPANY, INC. et al
001003453192
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Cw rn Aw ee wWwN =
eee
a A UF Bw NH =
18
DONGELL LAWRENCE FINNEY LLP
MICHAEL GALLAGHER (SBN 195592)
mgallagher@dlflawyers.com
COURTNEY R. ROSS-TAIT (SBN 270764)
cross@dlflawyers.com.
707 Wilshire Boulevard, 45th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3609
Telephone: (213) 943-6100
Facsimile: (213) 943-6101
Attorneys for Defendant
TWO'S COMPANY, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P-E.,
Plaintiff,
TWO'S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1-150,
inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.: CGC-11-516586
[Assigned For All Purposes to the Honorable
Katherine Feinstein — Civil Center Room
610]
NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF
FILING OF REMOVAL
ACTION FILED: December 14, 2011
TO PLAINTIFE ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.E. AND TO HIS COUNSEL
OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Two’s Company, Inc. (“Two's”) filed a
Notice of Removal of this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
1
NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF REMOVALeC we NA A Rk WN =
NN NY MN NNN YS ee
BepRRPBRBEE BP Se UR BEBE HE ST
California on January 12, 2012. A copy of the Notice of Removal without exhibits is attached to
this notice as Exhibit 1, and served and filed herewith.
DATED: January 13, 2012 DONGELL LAWRENCE FINNEY LLP
By:
Courtney Rae
Attorneys for Deféfidant
TWO'S COMPANY, INC.
2
NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF REMOVAL |EXHIBIT 1Oo mn AUR WN
ee
- Oo
DONGELL LAWRENCE FINNEY LLP
MICHAEL GALLAGHER (SBN 195592)
mgallagher! diflawyers. por
COUR R. ROSS-TAIT (SBN 270764)
cross@dlflawyers.com
707 Wilshire oulevard, 45th Floor
Los Angeles, CA. 90017-3609
Telephone: 1) 943-6100
Facsimile: (213) 943-6101
Attorneys for Defendant
TWO'S COMPANY, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT J SC
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
aN ; eso6
ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P-E., iN 42. 0 Keo tad 0
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
Plaintiff, REMOVAL
[Qn grounds of Diversi of
v. itizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332]
[Filed concurrently with: | .
TWO’S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES ~ Notice of Party with Financial
1-150, inclusive, Interest, Sh
‘ivil Cover Sheet;
Certificate of Service
- Certification of Notice of
Defendants. Tnterested Parties]
ACTION FILED: 04/27/11
_ TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND TO THE PLAINTIFF
ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.-E. AND HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Two’s Company, Inc.
(Two’s) hereby removes Case Number CGC-11-516586 from the Superior Court
of the State of California County of San Francisco, to this Court, pursuant to 28
1
comer ersten’ CF OFREROVAE—|women Dn PWN
moe
~~ Oo
US.C. Section 1332. This Notice of Removal is being filed without prejudice to
the objections and defenses of the removing Defendant. Removal of this action is
proper for the following reasons:
- TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL
1. Defendant was first served with process in this action on
December 16, 2011, when it was served with a copy of the Summons and
Complaint. /
2. This removal is timely under 28'U.S.C. Section 1446(B) in that
removal is sought within 30 days after service upon Defendants of the Summons
and Complaint.
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
3. This action is a civil action of which this Court has jurisdiction
under the provisions of 28 U.S. C. Section 1332 and is one which may be removed
to this Court by Defendants pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section
1441(b) in that it is a civil action between citizens of different states, and the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,
as set forth more fully below.
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP
4. Plaintiff Anthony E. Held, Pb.D., P.E. (“Plaintiff”) is and at all
relevant times was a resident and citizen of California. See Plaintiffs Complaint,
q9 1, 12.
5. Defendant Two’s is, and at all relevant times was, a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal
place of business in Elmsford, New York. Accordingly, at the time of the filing of
this Notice of Removal, Two’s was and is a citizen of the State of New York.
6. All of the other defendants are fictitiously named or non-
existent defendants who need not be considered for purposes of removal under 28
U.S.C. Section 1441(a).Oo co nN Dn fF WYN =
=e ee
BON =| Oo
14
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
7. The amount in controversy is at least $75,000 and substantially
exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Plaintiff affirmatively alleged
by way of filing its action in the unlimited civil jurisdiction department.
8. Plaintiff has sued Defendant for civil penalties under the
California Health & Safety Code Section 25249.6 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that he
Defendant is liable for a maximum civil penalty of $2,500 per day for each
violation pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 25249.7, See Plaintiff's
Complaint, § 41. :
9. Inaddition to civil penalties, Plaintiff has asserted claims for
attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. Complaint, p. 6:12. Courts have held that
attorneys’ fees and punitive damages are to be considered in calculating the
amount in controversy. See Richmond v. Allstate Ins. Co., 897 F. Supp. 447 (8.D.
Cal. 1995); Conrad v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co, 994 F. Supp. 1196, 1198
(N.D. Cal. 1998). These alleged damages further support that the damages sought
and thus the amount at issue substantially exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of
this Court.
PROCESS
10. The Summons, the Complaint, and all documents served with
the Summons and Complaint, true and correct copies of which are attached hereto
as Exhibit “A,” constitute the entire process and pleadings filed in the state court
action.
11. Written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal has been
given to all adverse parties and a copy has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior]
Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco, in accordance
with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1446(d).
Mit
H/T
-—-DEFENDANTTWO’S COMPANY, INC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL}CoO KH nH FF WN |
So
— Oo
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this action pending in the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco be removed to this
Court.
DATED: January 13, 2012 DONGELL,LAWRENCE FINNEY, LLP
By:
Attorneys fort
TWO'S COMPANY, INC.EXHIBIT 1SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
~ COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO:
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Dec-14-2011 9:46 am
Case Number: CGC-11-516586
Filing Date: Dec-14-2011 9:43
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03419135
COMPLAINT
ANTHONY E HELD VS. TWO'S COMPANY, INC. et ai
001003419135
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top af the document to be scanned.
12, SUM-100"
SUMMONS aE Ot er
(CITACION JUDICIAL) :
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
{AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
TWO’S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1-150, inclusive
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
ANTHONY E. HELD, Ph.D., P.E.
WOTIGET Vou have heen Sed. The count may decile against you without your being heard unless you Tespand within 30 days, Read the information
below.”
may be taken without further waming from the court.
Tere are atner fegal requirements. You may want to call an attomey right away. If ou do not know an attomey. you may want to call an atlomey
referal service. If you carnet afford an attomey, you may be eligible for free lego! services from a nanprofit legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (ww Jewhalpcakfornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Cenler
(ene. courtinfo.ca gov/salthele), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statulory tien for waved fees and
‘costs on any setterment or arbitration award of $10,000 oF more ina civil case. The court's len must be paki before the courl will dismiss the case.
JAVISO! Lo fan demendado. Si ao responde dentro de 30 dias, fa corte puede decttr an su conta sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion 9
continuacion. :
Tione 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que ie entrequen asta aitacién y papeles kegales pare presenter una respuesta por sscrito en asta
corte y hace? quo ce entreque una copia al demandente, Una cota 0 una lamacta tafonica nolo protegen. Su respuasta por escrito tens ave eslar
on foorata legal carrecto 3 desea que procesen su caso en fa corte. Es posible que haya un formularo que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
Puads ancoriear estos formdarios de la corte y més informaciin on el Centro de Ayuda de fas Cortes de Calitornia (waw.sucorte.ca.gav), on is
bibfoteca de leyes de su condado 0 en la corte que le quede més cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuola de presentacion, pida at secretario de la cone
que ie dé un formufaric de exencién de pago de cvotas. ‘Sino presenta su respuesta @ tiempo, puede perder of caso por incumplimiento y la corte fe
cualtuier recuperacin de-$12.000 6 mds de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concestén de arbitraye en un caso de derecho civil. Tene Que
pagar al gravamen de fa corte antes de que ia corte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address is: yee =
(ars deecoon don cara 3) Cac fe eee 16586
San Francisco Superior Court - Untimited Civil
400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94103
The name, atidress, and telephone number of plaintif's atlomney, oF plaintiff without en attorney, is:
(El nombre, fa direccién y. ei ndmero de teléfono de! abogadoe de! demandante, ‘0 dal demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
Rachel S, Doughty (SBN 255904) 2560 9th St, Parker Plaza, Ste 214, Berkeley, CA 94710, (510) 848-
de
pare: DEC 4 4 on : Clerk, by D. STEPPE , Deputy
pate: 2011 GLERK OF THE COURT (Secretario) : (Adjunto)
(For proof of service of this summons, use Prool of Service of Summons (form POS-010),}
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
1. (_] as an individual defendant.
2. [as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
3, [£1 on behalf of (specify):
under: CCP 416,10 (corporation) [1] COP 416.60 (minor)
CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation} fi] CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
[J CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) [__} CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
[] other (specify):
4. [__] by personal delivery on (date): .
Page tof
SUMMONS eve of Ga Procxhre $9412.70, 465
SUNEIOD ev. by 3,200 worn curio cose
- Ppevercan Lagat re.
evar Ferm torkow com]~ e @
Ae S Douek Saw bane Ds
THE CHANLER GROUP .
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 214, Berkeley, CA 94710
Berkeley, CA 94710
TELEPHONE NO; $10) 848-8880 FAN (510) 848-8118
arromey ron mone, Plaintiff, Anthony E. Held, Ph.D. P.E. .
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNMA, COUNTY OF San Francisco
street aooress: 400 McAllister Street .
MAILING ADORESS: .
cry awozw cove: San Francisco 94102
saancr nave. Unlirnited Civil
‘CASE NAME:
Held v. Two's Company, Inc., et al.
zt CASE covER SHEET Complex Case Designation
Uniimited Limited
(Amount (Amount [2] counter [_] Joinaer
demanded demanded is Filed with frst appearance by defendant
exceeds $26,000) $25,000 orless}}. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)
items 1-6 below murat be completed (see instructions on page 2).
~ Check one box below Tor the case lype that best describes this case: :
‘Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civit Litigation
Auto (22) [] Breach of contacthvarranty (08) (Cal Rules of Court, rules
Uninsured motorist (48) Rule3.740 collections (09) [__] AnsisusiTrade regulation (03)
Other PYPDAVD (Personal Injusy/Property be Other cokections (08), [_] Construction defect (10) _
‘Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort insurance coverage (18) {5 mass tort 40)
‘Asbestos (04) [J otner contract (37) [J securities tugation (28)
(2) Product tatty (24) Real Property [1]. EnsironmentalrTaxic tort (20)
[_] Medicat malpractice (45) ) Eminant damainrinverse 7) insurance coverage claims arising Som the
[J omer pvppewn (23) condemnation (14) Shuve Isted prowaonally complex case
‘Non-PUPDMWD (Other Tort Wrongful eviction (33) ‘ypes (41)
Business torthuntolr business practice (07) [} Other eat property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
fos Civlirignts (08) Untawtul Detainer 3 Entorcoment af jadgment (20)
Defamation (13) Commerciat (21) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
J Fras (16) Residential (32) 2) acon
Intetectuat property (19) Drugs (38) (1 omer compiaint (not specified above) (42)
[_] Professional negigence (25) Judictat Reviow . Misceviancous Clvil Petition .
EJ otter non-PIPOAND tort (35) LJ Asset forteture (05 {__] Partnership and corparate governance (21)
Employment Peition re; arbltraion award (14) Other peliton not saecied above) (43)
\Wkongtul termination (38) [1 won ot mandate (02)
[J otter employment (15) EJ othe jusicial review (39)
DT tmscase Lol [ie] isnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a.L_] Large number of separately represented parties. {_] pange number of witnesses
b.[__] Extensive motion practice raising difficult of novel. [—] Caordination with ratated actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or counties, or in a federal court
c. [J Substantial amount of documentary evidence +. (] substantial postiudgment judicial supervision
2. Remedies sought (check afl that apply): 2.57] monetary b.(_] nonmanetary: dectaratory or injunctive relies. [punitive
4. Number of causes of action (specify): One (1):
5. Thiscase [}is [4Jisnot aciass action suit.
6. fthere are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case, (You may use form CM-015)
Sate: December 13, 2011 ott S coughs’
Rachel S. Doughty di 39
TIPE On PRINT NAME)
(OTICE
« Plaintiff must fle thes cover sheet wih the first paper fied in the action or proceeding (except small claims casas or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Insitutions Code). (Cal, Rules ‘of Court, rule 3,220.) Failure to file may result
mi FOR PARTY
in sanctions,
= File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court mute.
» if this case is complex under mute 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve & copy of this caver sheet on al?
other parties lo the action or proceeding.
« Unless this is a cofections case under rule 3.740 or a complex casa, this cover sheet wil be used for statistical purposes on Le sora
Poa rlatcatttie CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cot Rg oC FS OS
SS ee
— EaDO YN DH YM F YN
NM MN NHN RN NNR RO mem ee
on A DF BN FS SF GC we ADAH B WH |
Josh Voorhees, State Bar No. 241436
Rachel S. Doughty, State Bar No. 255904
‘THE CHANLER GROUP
2560.Ninth Street
Parker Plaza, Suite 214
Berkeley, CA 94710-2565
Telephone: (510) 848-8880
Facsimile: (510) 848-8118
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ANTHONY E. HELD, PH_D., P. E.
* SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.E.,
Plaintiff,
TWO" S$ COMPANY, INC; and DOES 1-150,
inclusive,
Defendants.
CGC-11-516586
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Cal. Health & Safety Code. § 25249.6 et seq.)
‘COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFBw oN
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This Complaint is a representative action brought by. Plaintiff ANTHONY E.
HELD, PH.D., P.E., in the public interest of the citizens of the State of California, to enforce the
* People’s right to be informed of the presence of toxic chemicals found in consumer products
sold in California, including di(2-ethylhexylyphthalate (“DEHP”) found in cosmetic cases/bags
and luggage tags and lead found in luggage tags.
2. By this Complaint, plaintiff seeks to remedy defendants’ continuing failure to
warn California citizens about reproductive harms associated with their exposure to the
following chemicals in and/or on the following consumer products that defendants manufacture,
import, distribute, and/or offer for sale to. consumers throughout the State of California: DEHP
present in and/or on certain cosmetic cases/bags and luggage tags and lead present in certain
luggage tags.
3. High levels of the following chemicals are commonly found in and/or on the
“following consumer products that defendants manufacture, import, distribute, and/or offer for
sale to consumers throughout the State of Califomia: DEHP present in and/or on certain
cosmetic cases/bags and luggage tags and lead present in certain luggage tags.
- 4. Under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986,
Health & Safety Code section 25249.6 et seq. (“Proposition 65”), “{njo 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 ...” (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.6.)
5. On October 24, 2003, Califomia identified and listed DEHP as a chemical known
to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm. DEHP became subject to the “clear and
reasonable warning” requirements of Proposition 65 one year later on October 24, 2004. (Cal.
Code Reps,, tit. 27, § 27001, subd. (c); Health & Saf. Code, §§ 25249.8 & 25249.10, subd. (b).)
6. On February 27, 1987, California identified and listed lead as a chemical known
to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm. Lead became subject to the warning
requirement one year later and was therefore subject to the “clear and reasonable warning”
‘COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFew ry anu B wn
3
requirements of Proposition 65, beginning on February 27, 1988. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27,
§ 27001, subd. (c); Health & Saf. Code, §§ 25249.8 & 25249.10, subd. (b))
7 Defendants manufacture, import, distribute, and/or seil cosmetic cases/bags and
luggage tags containing DEHP and lead as follows:
a Defendants manufacture, import, distribute, and/or offer for sale cosmetic
cases/bags containing DEHP (“COSMETIC BAG PRODUCTS”) inéluding, but not
limited to, the Mindy Weiss Bridesmaid Cosmetic Bag, #8850 (#0 19218 08850 2).
b. Defendants manufacture, import, distribute, and/or offer for sale luggage
tags containing DEHP and/or lead (“LUGGAGE TAG PRODUCTS’) including, but not
limited to, the Hide & Seek Luggage Tag, #41169-20 (#0 1 9218 72065 5).
8. All such COSMETIC BAG PRODUCTS and LUGGAGE TAG PRODUCTS
shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as the “PRODUCTS.”
9. Defendants’ failure to warm consumers and/or other individuals in the state of
California not covered by California’s Occupational Safety Health Act, Labor Code section
6300 et seq., about their exposure to DEHP and/or lead and its potential to cause birth defects _
and other reproductive harm in conjunction with Defendants” distribution, importation,
manufacturing, and/or sale of the PRODUCTS is a violation of Proposition 65 and subjects
Defendants to enjoinment of such conduct as well as civil penalties for each such violation.
10. For defendants’ violations of Proposition 65, plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive
and permanent injunctive relief to compel defendants to provide purchasers or users of the
PRODUCTS with the required warning regarding the health hazards of DEHP and/or lead.
(Health & Safety Code, § 25249.7, subd. (2).)
11. Plaintiff also seeks civil penalties against defendants for their violations of
Proposition 65, as provided by Health & Safety Code section 25249.7(b).
M ,
Wi
at
it
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFOo wo 4D
. .PARTIES
12. Plaintiff, ANTHONY. E. HELD, PH.D., P-E., is a citizen of the state of California
who is dedicated to protecting the health of California citizens through the elimination or -
reduction of toxic exposures from consumer products; he brings this action in the public interest
pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 25249.7(d).
13. Defendant TWO’S COMPANY, INC. (“TCI”) is a person in the course of doing
business within the meaning of Health & Safety Code section 25249.11.
14. Defendant TC1 manufactures, distributes, and/or offers the PRODUCTS for sale
or use in the state of California, or implies by its conduct that it manufactures, distributes,
and/or offers the PRODUCTS for éale or use in the state of California.
15. Defendants DOES 1-50 (‘MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS”) are each
persons in the course of doing business within the meaning of Health & Safety Code section
2524914. -
16. MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS engage in the process of researching,
testing, designing, assembling, fabricating, and/or manufacturing, or imply by their conduct that
they engage in the process of researching, testing, designing, assembling, fabricating, and/or
manufacturing, one or more of the PRODUCTS offered for sale or use in the state of California.
17. Defendants DOES 51-100 (“DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS”) are each persons -
in the course of doing business within the meaning of Health & Safety Code section 25249.11.
18. DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS distribute, exchange, transfer, process, and/or
transport one or more of the PRODUCTS to individuals, businesses, or retailers for sale or use
in the state of California. :
19. Defendants DOES 101-150 (“RETAILER DEFENDANTS”) are each persons in
the course of doing business within the meaning of Health & Safety Code section 25249.11.
20. RETAILER DEFENDANTS offer the PRODUCTS for sale to individuals in the
state of California.
21. At this time, the true names of Defendants DOES | through 150, inclusive, are
unknown to plaintiff, who therefore sues said defendants by their fictitious name pursuant to
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFCode of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis
alleges, that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible for the acts and occurrences
alleged herein.” When ascertained, their true names shall be yeflected in an amended complaint.
22. TCI, MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS, DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS,
and RETAILER DEFENDANTS shall, where appropriate, collectively be referred to as
“DEFENDANTS.”
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
23. Venue is proper in‘the San Francisco County Superior Court pursuant to Code of
|| Civil Procedure sections 394, 395, & 395.5, because this Court is a court of competent
jurisdiction, because.one or more instances of wrongful conduct occurred, and continue to
occur, in San Francisco County, and/or because DEFENDANTS conducted, and continue to
conduct, business in this County with respect to the PRODUCTS.
24. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
California Constitution Article VI, section 10, which grants the Superior Court “original
jurisdiction in all causes except those given by statute to other trial courts.” The statute under
which this action is brought does not specify any other basis of subject matter jurisdiction.
25. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over DEFENDANTS based on
plaintiff's information and good faith belief that each defendant is a person, firm, corporation, °
or association that is a citizen of the state of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in the
state of California, or otherwise purposefully avails itself of the California market.
DEFENDANTS’ purposeful availment renders the exercise of personal jurisdiction by
California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
a“
Ml,
“Ww
“
HI
Wt
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFWD W eB ww
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Proposition 65 - Against Ail Defendants)
26. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein,
Paragraphs | through 25, inclusive.
27. The citizens of the state of California have stated expressly in the Safe Drinking
Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 that they must be informed “about exposures to
chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm.” (Health & Saf. Code, §
25249.6) :
- 28. Proposition 65 states, “[nJo person in the course of doing business shall
knowingly and intentionally expose any individual toa chemica! known to the state to cause
’
~ cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable waming to such
individual. (id)
29. On orabout April 8, 2011, a sixty-day notice of violation, together with the
requisite certificate of merit, was provided to TCI and various public enforcement agencies
stating that, as a result of the DEFENDANTS’ sales of the COSMETIC BAG PRODUCTS,
purchasers and users in the state of California were exposed to DEHP resulting from the
reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS, without the individual purchasers and users first
having received a “clear and reasonable warning” regarding such toxic exposures.
30. On or about September 19, 2011, a supplemental sixty-day notice of violation,
together with the requisite certificate of merit, was provided to TCI and various public
enforcement agencies stating that:
a. As a result of the DEFENDANTS? sales of the COSMETIC BAG
PRODUCTS, purchasers and users in the state of California were exposed to DEHP
resulting from the reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS, without the individual
purchasers and users first having received a “clear and yeasonable warning” regarding
such toxic exposures. , ,
b. As a result of the DEFENDANTS’ sales of the LUGGAGE TAG
PRODUCTS, purchasers and users in the state of California were exposed to DEHP
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFoe I AW RF YN
and/or lead resulting from the reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS, without the
individual purchasers and users first having received a “clear and reasonable warming”
regarding.such toxic exposures.
| 31. DEFENDANTS have engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and/or offering of
the PRODUCTS for sale or use in violation of Health & Safety Code section 25249.6, and
DEFENDANTS?’ manufacture, distribution, and/or offering of the PRODUCTS for sale or use
in violation of Health & Safety Code section 25249.6 has continued to occur beyond :
DEFENDANTS’ receipt of plaintiff's sixty-day notice ‘of violation and supplemental sixty-day
notice of violation. Plaintiff further alleges and believes that such violations will continue to
occur into the future. : oe
32. After receipt of the claims asserted in the sixty-day notice of violation and
supplemental sixty-day notice of violation, the appropriate public enforcement agencies have
failed to commence and diligently prosecute a cause of action against DEFENDANTS under
Proposition 65. :
33. The PRODUCTS manufactured, distributed, and/or offered for sale or use in
California by DEFENDANTS contained DEHP and/or lead in an amount-above the allowable
state limits. :
34. . DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that the PRODUCTS manufactured,”
distributed, and/or offered for sale or use in California contained DEHP and/or lead.
35. DEHP and/or lead was present in or on the PRODUCTS in such a way as to
expose individuals to DEHP and/or lead through dermal contact and/or ingestion during the
reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS.
36. The normal and reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS has caused, and
continues to cause, consumer exposures to DEHP and/or lead, as such exposure is defined by
California Code of Regulations title 27, section 25602, subdivision (b).
37. DEF ENDANTS had knowledge that the normal and reasonably foreseeable use of
the PRODUCTS would expose individuals to DEHP and/or Jead through dermal contact and/or
ingestion.
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF@ @
38. DEFENDANTS intended that such exposures to DEHP and/or lead from the
reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS would occur by their deliberate, non-accidental
participation in the manufacture, distribution, and/or offering of the PRODUCTS for sale or use :
10 individuals inthe state of California.
39. . DEFENDANTS failed to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” to those
consumers and/or other individuals in the state of California who were, or who could become,
exposed to DEHP and/or lead through dermal ‘contact and/or ingestion during the reasonably
foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS.
40. Contrary to the express policy and statutory prohibition of Proposition 65 enacted
directly by Califomia voters, individuals exposed to DEHP and/or lead through dermal contact
and/or ingestion resulting from the reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS sold by
DEFENDANTS without a “clear and reasonable warning,” have suffered, and continue to
suffer, irreparable barm for which they have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law.
41. Asaconsequence of the above-described acts, DEFENDANTS are liable for a
maximum civil penalty of $2,500 per day for each violation pursuant to Health & Safety Code
section 25249.7, subdivision (b).
42. As aconsequence of the above-described acts, Health & Safety Code
section 25249.7, subdivision (a) also specifically authorizes the Court to grant injunctive relief
against DEFENDANTS.
Mi ,
at
We
“at
ut
a“
a
Mh
Wt
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF" PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment against DEFENDANTS as follows:
1. That the Court, porsuant to Health & Safety Code section 25249.7, subdivision
(b) assess civil penalties against DEFENDANTS in the amount of $2,500 per day for each
violation alleged herein;
2. That the Court, pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 25249.7, subdivision (2)
preliminarily and permanently enjoin DEFENDANTS from manufacturing, distributing, and/or
offering the PRODUCTS for sale or use in California, without providing “clear and reasonable . .
warnings” as defined by California Code of Regulations title 27, section 25601 as to the harms
associated with exposure to DEHP in the COSMETIC CASE PRODUCTS and LUGGAGE
TAG PRODUCTS and lead in the LUGGAGE TAG PRODUCTS; .
3. That the Court grant plaintiff his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and
4. That the Court grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Dated: December 13, 2011
Respectfully Submitted,
THE CHANLER GROUP
fr $8
By:
Rachel S. Doughty
” Attomeys for Plaintiff
ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D.. P.E.
- . 6
‘COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF .wean nun ft Wn =
Se ee
won oO
~ 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Iam employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I
am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is:
707 Wilshire Bivd., 45" Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017. /
_ Thereby certify that on January 13, 2012, I served the foregoing
document(s) described as: DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL on the
interested parties in this action by placing __ the original/_X_a true copy thereof
enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:
Attomey for Plaintiff
Josh Voorhees, Esq.
Rachel S. Doughty, Esq.
THE CHANLER GROUP
2560 Ninth Street
Parker Plaza
Suite 214 .
Berkeley, CA 94710
Tel: (510) 848-8880
Fax: (510) 848-8118
[X] BY.MAIL I deposited such envelopes in the mail at Los Angeles,
California. [am readily familiar with the firm's practice of co! lection and
processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be
deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage
thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of
puSiness.
[xX] (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the
ar of this court at whose direction the service was made.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States
of America that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was
executed on January 13, 2012, at Los Angeles, California.CON AH BR WYN
NN YN NN NR KN RD He ee we me SB Re Be Se
od A A BF ON KF SOD wT ADAH FF WN = SD
PROOF OF SERVICE - CCP §§ 1013a, 2015.5
[am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 707 Wilshire Boulevard,
45th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-3609.
On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing document described as
follows: NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF REMOVAL, on the interested
parties in this action by placing __ the original/__X___a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope(s) addressed as follows:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
[X] BY MAIL I deposited such envelopes in the mail at Los Angeles, California. I am
readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing of correspondence
for mailing, Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on
that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the
ordinary course of business.
[ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE | caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the
offices of the addressee(s).
{ ] BY FEDEX | caused such envelopes to be served via FedEx. I am readily familiar with
the firm's practice of collection and processing of correspondence for FedEx, Under that
ractice it would be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by FedEx
for next day delivery.
[ ] BY FACSIMILE MACHINE: The foregoing document was transmitted to the attached
named person(s) by facsimile transmission from (213) 943-6101 on said date and the
transmission was reported as complete and without crror.
{ ] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: The foregoing document was transmitted via
electronic mail to the addressee(s), at the e-mail address(es) indicated on the attached
service list.
[X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
{] (FEDERAL) J declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this
court at whose direction the service was made.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the}
foregoing is true and correct and that this declardttyn was executed on January 13, 2012, at Los
Angeles, California.
3
NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF REMOVALOo Ow YH HF WN &
RP NR RR RP NN NY Se See oo eo
BRRkRRERKRHEBESFEUVRFAEBHRAS
SERVICE LIST
Josh Voorhees, Esq.
Rachel S. Doughty, Esq.
THE CHANLER GROUP
2560 Ninth Street
Parker Plaza
Suite 214
Berkeley, CA 94710
Tel: (510) 848-8880
Fax: (510) 848-8118
Attorney for Plaintiff
Anthony E. Held, Ph.D.
4
NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF REMOVAL
Preview
UAC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jan-13-2012 3:53 pm Case Number: CGC-11-516586 Filing Date: Jan-13-2012 3:51 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03453192 NOTICE OF REMOVAL ANTHONY E HELD VS. TWO'S COMPANY, INC. et al 001003453192 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Cw rn Aw ee wWwN = eee a A UF Bw NH = 18 DONGELL LAWRENCE FINNEY LLP MICHAEL GALLAGHER (SBN 195592) mgallagher@dlflawyers.com COURTNEY R. ROSS-TAIT (SBN 270764) cross@dlflawyers.com. 707 Wilshire Boulevard, 45th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3609 Telephone: (213) 943-6100 Facsimile: (213) 943-6101 Attorneys for Defendant TWO'S COMPANY, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P-E., Plaintiff, TWO'S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1-150, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: CGC-11-516586 [Assigned For All Purposes to the Honorable Katherine Feinstein — Civil Center Room 610] NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF REMOVAL ACTION FILED: December 14, 2011 TO PLAINTIFE ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.E. AND TO HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Two’s Company, Inc. (“Two's”) filed a Notice of Removal of this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 1 NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF REMOVALeC we NA A Rk WN = NN NY MN NNN YS ee BepRRPBRBEE BP Se UR BEBE HE ST California on January 12, 2012. A copy of the Notice of Removal without exhibits is attached to this notice as Exhibit 1, and served and filed herewith. DATED: January 13, 2012 DONGELL LAWRENCE FINNEY LLP By: Courtney Rae Attorneys for Deféfidant TWO'S COMPANY, INC. 2 NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF REMOVAL |EXHIBIT 1Oo mn AUR WN ee - Oo DONGELL LAWRENCE FINNEY LLP MICHAEL GALLAGHER (SBN 195592) mgallagher! diflawyers. por COUR R. ROSS-TAIT (SBN 270764) cross@dlflawyers.com 707 Wilshire oulevard, 45th Floor Los Angeles, CA. 90017-3609 Telephone: 1) 943-6100 Facsimile: (213) 943-6101 Attorneys for Defendant TWO'S COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT J SC NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA aN ; eso6 ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P-E., iN 42. 0 Keo tad 0 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF Plaintiff, REMOVAL [Qn grounds of Diversi of v. itizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332] [Filed concurrently with: | . TWO’S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES ~ Notice of Party with Financial 1-150, inclusive, Interest, Sh ‘ivil Cover Sheet; Certificate of Service - Certification of Notice of Defendants. Tnterested Parties] ACTION FILED: 04/27/11 _ TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND TO THE PLAINTIFF ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.-E. AND HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Two’s Company, Inc. (Two’s) hereby removes Case Number CGC-11-516586 from the Superior Court of the State of California County of San Francisco, to this Court, pursuant to 28 1 comer ersten’ CF OFREROVAE—|women Dn PWN moe ~~ Oo US.C. Section 1332. This Notice of Removal is being filed without prejudice to the objections and defenses of the removing Defendant. Removal of this action is proper for the following reasons: - TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 1. Defendant was first served with process in this action on December 16, 2011, when it was served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint. / 2. This removal is timely under 28'U.S.C. Section 1446(B) in that removal is sought within 30 days after service upon Defendants of the Summons and Complaint. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 3. This action is a civil action of which this Court has jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S. C. Section 1332 and is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendants pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(b) in that it is a civil action between citizens of different states, and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, as set forth more fully below. DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP 4. Plaintiff Anthony E. Held, Pb.D., P.E. (“Plaintiff”) is and at all relevant times was a resident and citizen of California. See Plaintiffs Complaint, q9 1, 12. 5. Defendant Two’s is, and at all relevant times was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business in Elmsford, New York. Accordingly, at the time of the filing of this Notice of Removal, Two’s was and is a citizen of the State of New York. 6. All of the other defendants are fictitiously named or non- existent defendants who need not be considered for purposes of removal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a).Oo co nN Dn fF WYN = =e ee BON =| Oo 14 AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY 7. The amount in controversy is at least $75,000 and substantially exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Plaintiff affirmatively alleged by way of filing its action in the unlimited civil jurisdiction department. 8. Plaintiff has sued Defendant for civil penalties under the California Health & Safety Code Section 25249.6 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that he Defendant is liable for a maximum civil penalty of $2,500 per day for each violation pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 25249.7, See Plaintiff's Complaint, § 41. : 9. Inaddition to civil penalties, Plaintiff has asserted claims for attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. Complaint, p. 6:12. Courts have held that attorneys’ fees and punitive damages are to be considered in calculating the amount in controversy. See Richmond v. Allstate Ins. Co., 897 F. Supp. 447 (8.D. Cal. 1995); Conrad v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co, 994 F. Supp. 1196, 1198 (N.D. Cal. 1998). These alleged damages further support that the damages sought and thus the amount at issue substantially exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. PROCESS 10. The Summons, the Complaint, and all documents served with the Summons and Complaint, true and correct copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” constitute the entire process and pleadings filed in the state court action. 11. Written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal has been given to all adverse parties and a copy has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior] Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1446(d). Mit H/T -—-DEFENDANTTWO’S COMPANY, INC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL}CoO KH nH FF WN | So — Oo WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this action pending in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco be removed to this Court. DATED: January 13, 2012 DONGELL,LAWRENCE FINNEY, LLP By: Attorneys fort TWO'S COMPANY, INC.EXHIBIT 1SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ~ COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Document Scanning Lead Sheet Dec-14-2011 9:46 am Case Number: CGC-11-516586 Filing Date: Dec-14-2011 9:43 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03419135 COMPLAINT ANTHONY E HELD VS. TWO'S COMPANY, INC. et ai 001003419135 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top af the document to be scanned. 12, SUM-100" SUMMONS aE Ot er (CITACION JUDICIAL) : NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: {AVISO AL DEMANDADO): TWO’S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1-150, inclusive YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): ANTHONY E. HELD, Ph.D., P.E. WOTIGET Vou have heen Sed. The count may decile against you without your being heard unless you Tespand within 30 days, Read the information below.” may be taken without further waming from the court. Tere are atner fegal requirements. You may want to call an attomey right away. If ou do not know an attomey. you may want to call an atlomey referal service. If you carnet afford an attomey, you may be eligible for free lego! services from a nanprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (ww Jewhalpcakfornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Cenler (ene. courtinfo.ca gov/salthele), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statulory tien for waved fees and ‘costs on any setterment or arbitration award of $10,000 oF more ina civil case. The court's len must be paki before the courl will dismiss the case. JAVISO! Lo fan demendado. Si ao responde dentro de 30 dias, fa corte puede decttr an su conta sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion 9 continuacion. : Tione 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que ie entrequen asta aitacién y papeles kegales pare presenter una respuesta por sscrito en asta corte y hace? quo ce entreque una copia al demandente, Una cota 0 una lamacta tafonica nolo protegen. Su respuasta por escrito tens ave eslar on foorata legal carrecto 3 desea que procesen su caso en fa corte. Es posible que haya un formularo que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puads ancoriear estos formdarios de la corte y més informaciin on el Centro de Ayuda de fas Cortes de Calitornia (waw.sucorte.ca.gav), on is bibfoteca de leyes de su condado 0 en la corte que le quede més cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuola de presentacion, pida at secretario de la cone que ie dé un formufaric de exencién de pago de cvotas. ‘Sino presenta su respuesta @ tiempo, puede perder of caso por incumplimiento y la corte fe cualtuier recuperacin de-$12.000 6 mds de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concestén de arbitraye en un caso de derecho civil. Tene Que pagar al gravamen de fa corte antes de que ia corte pueda desechar el caso. The name and address is: yee = (ars deecoon don cara 3) Cac fe eee 16586 San Francisco Superior Court - Untimited Civil 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 The name, atidress, and telephone number of plaintif's atlomney, oF plaintiff without en attorney, is: (El nombre, fa direccién y. ei ndmero de teléfono de! abogadoe de! demandante, ‘0 dal demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Rachel S, Doughty (SBN 255904) 2560 9th St, Parker Plaza, Ste 214, Berkeley, CA 94710, (510) 848- de pare: DEC 4 4 on : Clerk, by D. STEPPE , Deputy pate: 2011 GLERK OF THE COURT (Secretario) : (Adjunto) (For proof of service of this summons, use Prool of Service of Summons (form POS-010),} (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. (_] as an individual defendant. 2. [as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3, [£1 on behalf of (specify): under: CCP 416,10 (corporation) [1] COP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation} fi] CCP 416.70 (conservatee) [J CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) [__} CCP 416.90 (authorized person) [] other (specify): 4. [__] by personal delivery on (date): . Page tof SUMMONS eve of Ga Procxhre $9412.70, 465 SUNEIOD ev. by 3,200 worn curio cose - Ppevercan Lagat re. evar Ferm torkow com]~ e @ Ae S Douek Saw bane Ds THE CHANLER GROUP . 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 214, Berkeley, CA 94710 Berkeley, CA 94710 TELEPHONE NO; $10) 848-8880 FAN (510) 848-8118 arromey ron mone, Plaintiff, Anthony E. Held, Ph.D. P.E. . SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNMA, COUNTY OF San Francisco street aooress: 400 McAllister Street . MAILING ADORESS: . cry awozw cove: San Francisco 94102 saancr nave. Unlirnited Civil ‘CASE NAME: Held v. Two's Company, Inc., et al. zt CASE covER SHEET Complex Case Designation Uniimited Limited (Amount (Amount [2] counter [_] Joinaer demanded demanded is Filed with frst appearance by defendant exceeds $26,000) $25,000 orless}}. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) items 1-6 below murat be completed (see instructions on page 2). ~ Check one box below Tor the case lype that best describes this case: : ‘Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civit Litigation Auto (22) [] Breach of contacthvarranty (08) (Cal Rules of Court, rules Uninsured motorist (48) Rule3.740 collections (09) [__] AnsisusiTrade regulation (03) Other PYPDAVD (Personal Injusy/Property be Other cokections (08), [_] Construction defect (10) _ ‘Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort insurance coverage (18) {5 mass tort 40) ‘Asbestos (04) [J otner contract (37) [J securities tugation (28) (2) Product tatty (24) Real Property [1]. EnsironmentalrTaxic tort (20) [_] Medicat malpractice (45) ) Eminant damainrinverse 7) insurance coverage claims arising Som the [J omer pvppewn (23) condemnation (14) Shuve Isted prowaonally complex case ‘Non-PUPDMWD (Other Tort Wrongful eviction (33) ‘ypes (41) Business torthuntolr business practice (07) [} Other eat property (26) Enforcement of Judgment fos Civlirignts (08) Untawtul Detainer 3 Entorcoment af jadgment (20) Defamation (13) Commerciat (21) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint J Fras (16) Residential (32) 2) acon Intetectuat property (19) Drugs (38) (1 omer compiaint (not specified above) (42) [_] Professional negigence (25) Judictat Reviow . Misceviancous Clvil Petition . EJ otter non-PIPOAND tort (35) LJ Asset forteture (05 {__] Partnership and corparate governance (21) Employment Peition re; arbltraion award (14) Other peliton not saecied above) (43) \Wkongtul termination (38) [1 won ot mandate (02) [J otter employment (15) EJ othe jusicial review (39) DT tmscase Lol [ie] isnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a.L_] Large number of separately represented parties. {_] pange number of witnesses b.[__] Extensive motion practice raising difficult of novel. [—] Caordination with ratated actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or counties, or in a federal court c. [J Substantial amount of documentary evidence +. (] substantial postiudgment judicial supervision 2. Remedies sought (check afl that apply): 2.57] monetary b.(_] nonmanetary: dectaratory or injunctive relies. [punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify): One (1): 5. Thiscase [}is [4Jisnot aciass action suit. 6. fthere are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case, (You may use form CM-015) Sate: December 13, 2011 ott S coughs’ Rachel S. Doughty di 39 TIPE On PRINT NAME) (OTICE « Plaintiff must fle thes cover sheet wih the first paper fied in the action or proceeding (except small claims casas or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Insitutions Code). (Cal, Rules ‘of Court, rule 3,220.) Failure to file may result mi FOR PARTY in sanctions, = File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court mute. » if this case is complex under mute 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve & copy of this caver sheet on al? other parties lo the action or proceeding. « Unless this is a cofections case under rule 3.740 or a complex casa, this cover sheet wil be used for statistical purposes on Le sora Poa rlatcatttie CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cot Rg oC FS OS SS ee — EaDO YN DH YM F YN NM MN NHN RN NNR RO mem ee on A DF BN FS SF GC we ADAH B WH | Josh Voorhees, State Bar No. 241436 Rachel S. Doughty, State Bar No. 255904 ‘THE CHANLER GROUP 2560.Ninth Street Parker Plaza, Suite 214 Berkeley, CA 94710-2565 Telephone: (510) 848-8880 Facsimile: (510) 848-8118 Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTHONY E. HELD, PH_D., P. E. * SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.E., Plaintiff, TWO" S$ COMPANY, INC; and DOES 1-150, inclusive, Defendants. CGC-11-516586 Case No. COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Cal. Health & Safety Code. § 25249.6 et seq.) ‘COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFBw oN NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This Complaint is a representative action brought by. Plaintiff ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.E., in the public interest of the citizens of the State of California, to enforce the * People’s right to be informed of the presence of toxic chemicals found in consumer products sold in California, including di(2-ethylhexylyphthalate (“DEHP”) found in cosmetic cases/bags and luggage tags and lead found in luggage tags. 2. By this Complaint, plaintiff seeks to remedy defendants’ continuing failure to warn California citizens about reproductive harms associated with their exposure to the following chemicals in and/or on the following consumer products that defendants manufacture, import, distribute, and/or offer for sale to. consumers throughout the State of California: DEHP present in and/or on certain cosmetic cases/bags and luggage tags and lead present in certain luggage tags. 3. High levels of the following chemicals are commonly found in and/or on the “following consumer products that defendants manufacture, import, distribute, and/or offer for sale to consumers throughout the State of Califomia: DEHP present in and/or on certain cosmetic cases/bags and luggage tags and lead present in certain luggage tags. - 4. Under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health & Safety Code section 25249.6 et seq. (“Proposition 65”), “{njo 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 ...” (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.6.) 5. On October 24, 2003, Califomia identified and listed DEHP as a chemical known to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm. DEHP became subject to the “clear and reasonable warning” requirements of Proposition 65 one year later on October 24, 2004. (Cal. Code Reps,, tit. 27, § 27001, subd. (c); Health & Saf. Code, §§ 25249.8 & 25249.10, subd. (b).) 6. On February 27, 1987, California identified and listed lead as a chemical known to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm. Lead became subject to the warning requirement one year later and was therefore subject to the “clear and reasonable warning” ‘COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFew ry anu B wn 3 requirements of Proposition 65, beginning on February 27, 1988. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 27001, subd. (c); Health & Saf. Code, §§ 25249.8 & 25249.10, subd. (b)) 7 Defendants manufacture, import, distribute, and/or seil cosmetic cases/bags and luggage tags containing DEHP and lead as follows: a Defendants manufacture, import, distribute, and/or offer for sale cosmetic cases/bags containing DEHP (“COSMETIC BAG PRODUCTS”) inéluding, but not limited to, the Mindy Weiss Bridesmaid Cosmetic Bag, #8850 (#0 19218 08850 2). b. Defendants manufacture, import, distribute, and/or offer for sale luggage tags containing DEHP and/or lead (“LUGGAGE TAG PRODUCTS’) including, but not limited to, the Hide & Seek Luggage Tag, #41169-20 (#0 1 9218 72065 5). 8. All such COSMETIC BAG PRODUCTS and LUGGAGE TAG PRODUCTS shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as the “PRODUCTS.” 9. Defendants’ failure to warm consumers and/or other individuals in the state of California not covered by California’s Occupational Safety Health Act, Labor Code section 6300 et seq., about their exposure to DEHP and/or lead and its potential to cause birth defects _ and other reproductive harm in conjunction with Defendants” distribution, importation, manufacturing, and/or sale of the PRODUCTS is a violation of Proposition 65 and subjects Defendants to enjoinment of such conduct as well as civil penalties for each such violation. 10. For defendants’ violations of Proposition 65, plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive and permanent injunctive relief to compel defendants to provide purchasers or users of the PRODUCTS with the required warning regarding the health hazards of DEHP and/or lead. (Health & Safety Code, § 25249.7, subd. (2).) 11. Plaintiff also seeks civil penalties against defendants for their violations of Proposition 65, as provided by Health & Safety Code section 25249.7(b). M , Wi at it COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFOo wo 4D . .PARTIES 12. Plaintiff, ANTHONY. E. HELD, PH.D., P-E., is a citizen of the state of California who is dedicated to protecting the health of California citizens through the elimination or - reduction of toxic exposures from consumer products; he brings this action in the public interest pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 25249.7(d). 13. Defendant TWO’S COMPANY, INC. (“TCI”) is a person in the course of doing business within the meaning of Health & Safety Code section 25249.11. 14. Defendant TC1 manufactures, distributes, and/or offers the PRODUCTS for sale or use in the state of California, or implies by its conduct that it manufactures, distributes, and/or offers the PRODUCTS for éale or use in the state of California. 15. Defendants DOES 1-50 (‘MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS”) are each persons in the course of doing business within the meaning of Health & Safety Code section 2524914. - 16. MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS engage in the process of researching, testing, designing, assembling, fabricating, and/or manufacturing, or imply by their conduct that they engage in the process of researching, testing, designing, assembling, fabricating, and/or manufacturing, one or more of the PRODUCTS offered for sale or use in the state of California. 17. Defendants DOES 51-100 (“DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS”) are each persons - in the course of doing business within the meaning of Health & Safety Code section 25249.11. 18. DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS distribute, exchange, transfer, process, and/or transport one or more of the PRODUCTS to individuals, businesses, or retailers for sale or use in the state of California. : 19. Defendants DOES 101-150 (“RETAILER DEFENDANTS”) are each persons in the course of doing business within the meaning of Health & Safety Code section 25249.11. 20. RETAILER DEFENDANTS offer the PRODUCTS for sale to individuals in the state of California. 21. At this time, the true names of Defendants DOES | through 150, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff, who therefore sues said defendants by their fictitious name pursuant to COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFCode of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible for the acts and occurrences alleged herein.” When ascertained, their true names shall be yeflected in an amended complaint. 22. TCI, MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS, DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS, and RETAILER DEFENDANTS shall, where appropriate, collectively be referred to as “DEFENDANTS.” VENUE AND JURISDICTION 23. Venue is proper in‘the San Francisco County Superior Court pursuant to Code of || Civil Procedure sections 394, 395, & 395.5, because this Court is a court of competent jurisdiction, because.one or more instances of wrongful conduct occurred, and continue to occur, in San Francisco County, and/or because DEFENDANTS conducted, and continue to conduct, business in this County with respect to the PRODUCTS. 24. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Constitution Article VI, section 10, which grants the Superior Court “original jurisdiction in all causes except those given by statute to other trial courts.” The statute under which this action is brought does not specify any other basis of subject matter jurisdiction. 25. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over DEFENDANTS based on plaintiff's information and good faith belief that each defendant is a person, firm, corporation, ° or association that is a citizen of the state of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in the state of California, or otherwise purposefully avails itself of the California market. DEFENDANTS’ purposeful availment renders the exercise of personal jurisdiction by California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. a“ Ml, “Ww “ HI Wt COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFWD W eB ww FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Proposition 65 - Against Ail Defendants) 26. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, Paragraphs | through 25, inclusive. 27. The citizens of the state of California have stated expressly in the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 that they must be informed “about exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.6) : - 28. Proposition 65 states, “[nJo person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual toa chemica! known to the state to cause ’ ~ cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable waming to such individual. (id) 29. On orabout April 8, 2011, a sixty-day notice of violation, together with the requisite certificate of merit, was provided to TCI and various public enforcement agencies stating that, as a result of the DEFENDANTS’ sales of the COSMETIC BAG PRODUCTS, purchasers and users in the state of California were exposed to DEHP resulting from the reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS, without the individual purchasers and users first having received a “clear and reasonable warning” regarding such toxic exposures. 30. On or about September 19, 2011, a supplemental sixty-day notice of violation, together with the requisite certificate of merit, was provided to TCI and various public enforcement agencies stating that: a. As a result of the DEFENDANTS? sales of the COSMETIC BAG PRODUCTS, purchasers and users in the state of California were exposed to DEHP resulting from the reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS, without the individual purchasers and users first having received a “clear and yeasonable warning” regarding such toxic exposures. , , b. As a result of the DEFENDANTS’ sales of the LUGGAGE TAG PRODUCTS, purchasers and users in the state of California were exposed to DEHP COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFoe I AW RF YN and/or lead resulting from the reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS, without the individual purchasers and users first having received a “clear and reasonable warming” regarding.such toxic exposures. | 31. DEFENDANTS have engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and/or offering of the PRODUCTS for sale or use in violation of Health & Safety Code section 25249.6, and DEFENDANTS?’ manufacture, distribution, and/or offering of the PRODUCTS for sale or use in violation of Health & Safety Code section 25249.6 has continued to occur beyond : DEFENDANTS’ receipt of plaintiff's sixty-day notice ‘of violation and supplemental sixty-day notice of violation. Plaintiff further alleges and believes that such violations will continue to occur into the future. : oe 32. After receipt of the claims asserted in the sixty-day notice of violation and supplemental sixty-day notice of violation, the appropriate public enforcement agencies have failed to commence and diligently prosecute a cause of action against DEFENDANTS under Proposition 65. : 33. The PRODUCTS manufactured, distributed, and/or offered for sale or use in California by DEFENDANTS contained DEHP and/or lead in an amount-above the allowable state limits. : 34. . DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that the PRODUCTS manufactured,” distributed, and/or offered for sale or use in California contained DEHP and/or lead. 35. DEHP and/or lead was present in or on the PRODUCTS in such a way as to expose individuals to DEHP and/or lead through dermal contact and/or ingestion during the reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS. 36. The normal and reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS has caused, and continues to cause, consumer exposures to DEHP and/or lead, as such exposure is defined by California Code of Regulations title 27, section 25602, subdivision (b). 37. DEF ENDANTS had knowledge that the normal and reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS would expose individuals to DEHP and/or Jead through dermal contact and/or ingestion. COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF@ @ 38. DEFENDANTS intended that such exposures to DEHP and/or lead from the reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS would occur by their deliberate, non-accidental participation in the manufacture, distribution, and/or offering of the PRODUCTS for sale or use : 10 individuals inthe state of California. 39. . DEFENDANTS failed to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” to those consumers and/or other individuals in the state of California who were, or who could become, exposed to DEHP and/or lead through dermal ‘contact and/or ingestion during the reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS. 40. Contrary to the express policy and statutory prohibition of Proposition 65 enacted directly by Califomia voters, individuals exposed to DEHP and/or lead through dermal contact and/or ingestion resulting from the reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS sold by DEFENDANTS without a “clear and reasonable warning,” have suffered, and continue to suffer, irreparable barm for which they have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law. 41. Asaconsequence of the above-described acts, DEFENDANTS are liable for a maximum civil penalty of $2,500 per day for each violation pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 25249.7, subdivision (b). 42. As aconsequence of the above-described acts, Health & Safety Code section 25249.7, subdivision (a) also specifically authorizes the Court to grant injunctive relief against DEFENDANTS. Mi , at We “at ut a“ a Mh Wt COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF" PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment against DEFENDANTS as follows: 1. That the Court, porsuant to Health & Safety Code section 25249.7, subdivision (b) assess civil penalties against DEFENDANTS in the amount of $2,500 per day for each violation alleged herein; 2. That the Court, pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 25249.7, subdivision (2) preliminarily and permanently enjoin DEFENDANTS from manufacturing, distributing, and/or offering the PRODUCTS for sale or use in California, without providing “clear and reasonable . . warnings” as defined by California Code of Regulations title 27, section 25601 as to the harms associated with exposure to DEHP in the COSMETIC CASE PRODUCTS and LUGGAGE TAG PRODUCTS and lead in the LUGGAGE TAG PRODUCTS; . 3. That the Court grant plaintiff his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and 4. That the Court grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Dated: December 13, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, THE CHANLER GROUP fr $8 By: Rachel S. Doughty ” Attomeys for Plaintiff ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D.. P.E. - . 6 ‘COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF .wean nun ft Wn = Se ee won oO ~ 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Iam employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 707 Wilshire Bivd., 45" Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017. / _ Thereby certify that on January 13, 2012, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL on the interested parties in this action by placing __ the original/_X_a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Attomey for Plaintiff Josh Voorhees, Esq. Rachel S. Doughty, Esq. THE CHANLER GROUP 2560 Ninth Street Parker Plaza Suite 214 . Berkeley, CA 94710 Tel: (510) 848-8880 Fax: (510) 848-8118 [X] BY.MAIL I deposited such envelopes in the mail at Los Angeles, California. [am readily familiar with the firm's practice of co! lection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of puSiness. [xX] (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the ar of this court at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 13, 2012, at Los Angeles, California.CON AH BR WYN NN YN NN NR KN RD He ee we me SB Re Be Se od A A BF ON KF SOD wT ADAH FF WN = SD PROOF OF SERVICE - CCP §§ 1013a, 2015.5 [am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 707 Wilshire Boulevard, 45th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-3609. On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing document described as follows: NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF REMOVAL, on the interested parties in this action by placing __ the original/__X___a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST [X] BY MAIL I deposited such envelopes in the mail at Los Angeles, California. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing, Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. [ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE | caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee(s). { ] BY FEDEX | caused such envelopes to be served via FedEx. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing of correspondence for FedEx, Under that ractice it would be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by FedEx for next day delivery. [ ] BY FACSIMILE MACHINE: The foregoing document was transmitted to the attached named person(s) by facsimile transmission from (213) 943-6101 on said date and the transmission was reported as complete and without crror. { ] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: The foregoing document was transmitted via electronic mail to the addressee(s), at the e-mail address(es) indicated on the attached service list. [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. {] (FEDERAL) J declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the} foregoing is true and correct and that this declardttyn was executed on January 13, 2012, at Los Angeles, California. 3 NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF REMOVALOo Ow YH HF WN & RP NR RR RP NN NY Se See oo eo BRRkRRERKRHEBESFEUVRFAEBHRAS SERVICE LIST Josh Voorhees, Esq. Rachel S. Doughty, Esq. THE CHANLER GROUP 2560 Ninth Street Parker Plaza Suite 214 Berkeley, CA 94710 Tel: (510) 848-8880 Fax: (510) 848-8118 Attorney for Plaintiff Anthony E. Held, Ph.D. 4 NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF REMOVAL