Motion for Stipulated Judgment in TAMAR KALOUSTIAN, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST VS BOB'S RED MILL NATURAL FOODS, INC.| Trellis.Law

On December 06, 2022 a Stipulation,Agreement was filed involving a dispute between Kaloustian Tamar, and Bob'S Red Mill Natural Foods Inc., for Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort (General Jurisdiction) in the District Court of Los Angeles County.

Preview
1 Caspar Jivalagian, Esq., State Bar No.: 282818
Vache Thomassian, Esq., State Bar No.: 289053
2 Tro Krikorian, Esq., State Bar No.: 317183
IQT IAW GROUP, LLP
3 230 N. Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
Glendale, California 91206
4 Telephone: 1-818-507-8525
Facsimile: 1-818-507-8588
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 TAMARKALOUSTIAN

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

11
TAMAR KALOUSTIAN, in the public interest, Case No.: 22STCV38062
12
0... C
AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
::) -~ 13 Plaintiff, FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED CONSENT
0 ~ JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
a'. E
CJ i::. 14 v. AUTHORITIES
5- ·i
[Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25249.7(f)]
Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc.; and DOES 1
~ l :: through 100, inclusive,
Date: May 19, 2023
17 Time: 8:30 AM
Defendants.
18 Dept.: 76

19 Complaint Filed: December 6, 2022

20 Reservation ID: 500888480439

22
TO DEFENDANTS AND ITS ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
23
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on May 19, 2023 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter,
24
as the matter may be heard by The Honorable Christopher K. Lui in Dept 76 of this court, located
25
at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, California, Plaintiff will move for an order to enter judgment
26
pursuant to the terms of the stipulated settlement of this case executed by all parties on or about
27
March 23, 2023. The motion will be made on the grounds that the parties have entered into a
28
1
AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
stipulation pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §664.6 on the terms set forth on Exhibit C to the
2
accompanying Declaration ofTro Krikorian in Support of Motion For Entry of ConsentJud gment.
3
The motion will be based on this notice of motion, on the declaration of Tro Krikorian,
4
Esq. and the memorand um of points and authorities served and filed herewith, on the records and
5
file herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this motion.
6

7
Dated: May ~. 2023
8

10
Tho~
Atto~
~
~or Plaintiff
11 TAMAR KALOUSTIAL"\J
12
CL C
::> -~ 13
o :,;
t3 i 14
s ·i
~~ ::
17

22
23

26
27

28
2
AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM
OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
I. INTRODUCTION
3
Plaintiff TAMAR KALOUSTIAN ("Kaloustian") seeks this Court's entry of the parties
4
stipulated consent judgment between Kaloustian and Defendant Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc.
5
("BRM"), in connection with the sale and distribution of Defendant's Gluten Free Vegan Egg
6
Replacer, alleged to contain levels oflead, a known carcinogenic and reproductive toxicant, in excess
7
of the maximum allowable dosage level established by the California Office of Environmental
8
Health Hazard Assessment. The proposed consent judgment ("ConsentJudgme nt") stipulated by all
9
parties and reported to the California Attorney General, meets all requirements under California
10
law. Accordingly, the motion should be granted and the ConsentJudgment entered, bringing the
11
Defendant into compliance and the litigation to an end.
12
j 11. SALIENT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
0... C:

:J -~ 13
O " On May 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a 60-day Notice of Violations of California Health and
cc ~ 14
l'.J !:.
Safety Code Section 25249.5, et seq., ("Notice") alleging Defendant's consumer product, "Gluten
s ·i
~~
15
Free Vegan Egg Replacer" contained levels of lead in excess of allowable limits under California law.
16
~ In accordance with the statute, the Notice and a certificate of merit was served upon Defendant, the
17
District Attorneys of all 58 counties in the state, the City Attorneys of any California city with a
18
population in excess of 750,000, and the California Attorney General. On September 21, 2022,
19
Plaintiff filed an amended Notice, serving the proper retailer as an alleged violator. As further
20
required, Plaintiff provided additional evidentiary support for her allegations attached to the
21
certificate of merit served upon the California Attorney General. No public prosecutor commenced
22
any action in connection with the Notices within the 60-day period.
23
The parties facilitated a candid exchange of information allowing for discussion of
24
resolution. On December 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for injunctive relief and civil penalties
25
pursuant to the Act.
26
Ultimately, the parties agreed to a full resolution of all claims, the terms of which have been
27
memorialized in a stipulated proposed consentjudgment ("ConsentJudgmen t"). In accordance with
28
3
AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
statute, the proposed ConsentJudgment was submitted to the California Attorney General. (H&S
2
Code Sec. 25249.7(£); 11 CCR Sec. 3003).
3
Ill. ARGUMENT
4
A Statutory Background
5
California's Health & Safety Code at Section 25249.5, et seq., known as the Safe Drinking
6
Water and Toxic Enforcement Act ("the Act") generally requires a "clear and reasonable warning"
7
before potentially exposing persons to substances and chemicals known to the State of California to
8
cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive ha1m. (H&S Code Sec. 25249.6).
9
The State of California has officially listed lead as a chemical known to cause cancer,
10
developmental toxicity and reproductive hann. The agency charged with administering the Act, the
11
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA") set a "safe harbor" maximum
12
j allowable dosage level (reproductive ha1m) for lead of 0.5 micrograms per day.
Q_ C

:J ·~ 13
0 ~ Any person acting in the public interest may enforce violations of the Act, conditioned on
0:::: 2.
C) ~ 14
providing a proper notice upon the allege violator or violators, the California Attorney General, all
~ ·I
15
~ l county District Attorneys, and the City Attorneys specified. (H&S Code Sec. 25249.7(d)). A
16
~ resolution for entry of the consent judgment must comply with the Act's warning requirement, and
17
any civil penalties and fees must be reasonable. (H&S Code Sec. 25249.7(£)) .
18
B. The Stipulated ConsentJudgment Should Be Entered
19
At the outset, die ConsentJudgment fulfills die statutory aims of die Act, to wit, to ensure
20
users of die subject product - here Gluten Free Vegan Egg Replacer - eidier: (1) are not exposed to
21
lead above die 0.5 micrograms drreshold set by OEHHA; or (2) are given a clear and reasonable
22
warning d1at such exposures may occur. To effectuate these goals, d1e ConsentJudgment Provides,
23
in pertinent part, that Beginning one hundred twenty (120) days after die Effective Date, BRM shall
24
be permanently enjoined from manufacturing for sale in d1e State of California, "Distributing into
25
the State of California," or directly selling in die State of California, any Covered Product that expose
26
a person to a "Daily Lead Exposure Level" of more tl1an 0.5 micrograms of lead per day unless it
27
meets the warning requirements under Section 3.2. The injunctive relief in Section 3 does not apply
28
4
AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
to any Covered Product that was packaged, distributed, shipped or sold by BRM prior to tl1e
2
Compliance Date. All claims as to such Covered Product are released in tlns ConsentJudgment. As
3
used in tlns ConsentJudgment, tl1e term "Distributing into tl1e St.ate of California" shall mean to
4
directly ship a Covered Product into California for sale in California or to sell a Covered Product to
5
a distributor tl1at BRM knows or has reason to know will sell tl1e Covered Product in California.
6
(Consent]udgment, ,I3.1.1)
7
For purposes of tl1is ConsentJudgment, tl1e "Daily Lead Exposure Level" shall be measured
8
in micrograms, and shall be calculated using tl1e following formula: micrograms of lead per gram of
9
product, multiplied by grams of product per serving of tl1e product (using tl1e largest serving size
10
appearing on tl1e product label), multiplied by servings of the product per day (using tl1e largest
11
number of recommended daily servings appearing on tl1e label), which equals micrograms of lead
12
~ exposure per day. If the label contains no recommended daily servings, tl1en tl1e number of
Q_ C

::::Hl 13
0~ recommended daily servings shall be one. (ConsentJudgment, ,{3.1.2)
a: _g
CJ~ 14
If BRM is required to provide a warning pursuant to Section 3.1, one of tl1e following
3- ·I 15
~ ] warnings must be utilized ("Warning"):
16
~
17 Option 1:

18
WARNING: Consuming tlns product can expose you to chemicals including lead,
19
which is known to tl1e St.ate of California to cause cancer and, birth defects or other
20
reproductive harm. For more information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gowfood
21
22 Option 2:
23 WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm - www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/food
24
25 The W aming shall be at least tl1e same size as tl1e largest of any otl1er healtl1 or safety

26 warnings also appearing on the website or on the label and tl1e word "WARNING" shall be in all

27 capital letters and in bold print. No st.atements intended to or likely to have tl1e effect of diminislnng

28 tl1e impact of tl1e W aming on tl1e average lay person shall accompany tl1e W aming. Furtl1er, no
5
AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
statements may accompany the Warning that state or imply that the source of the listed chemical has
2
an impact on or results in a less harmful effect of the listed chemical. BRM must display the above
3
Warning with such conspicuousness, as compared with other words, statements or designs on the
4
label, or on its website, if applicable, to render the Warning likely to be read and understood by an
5
ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase or use of the product. (Consent
6
Judgment, ,r3.2.1)
7
C. The Attorneys' Fees Are Reasonable Under California law
8
H&S Code Section 25249.7(f)(4)(B) required the Court to find the attorneys' fees paid are
9
reasonable under California law. To make this determination, the Court may rely on either
10
principles of California contract law or California Code of Civil Procedure's "private attorney
11
general" fee-shifting statute at CCP 1021.5. Under either standard, the negotiated $59,000.00
12
~ reimbursement for fees and out-of-pocket litigation expenses is reasonable under California law.
D... ~
:::J ·;;; 13
0 ~ The jurisdictional basis for a reimbursement of attorneys' fees and expenses under the
a:: 2
CJ ::. 14
subject ConsentJudgment may be contractual, as consent judgment lies in contract. Attorneys' fees
~ ·J
15
~ ] are recoverable under the CCP Sec. 1033.S(a)(I0) as a cost when authorized by contract, statue or
16
~ law. A consent judgment is a "judgment entered by a court under the authority of, and in accordance
17
with, the contractual agreement of the parties." N orgart v. U pjohn, 2 I Cal. 4th 383, 400 (I 999). The
18
Attorney General's Settlement Guidelines under the Act specifically acknowledge that "[tithe fact
19
that the fee award is part of a settlement..may justify applying a somewhat less exacting review of
20
each element of the fee claim that would be applied in a contested application. 11 CCR Sec. 3201.
21
While an agreement to pay attorneys' fees, without more, may not necessarily render tl1ose fees
22
reasonable, such an agreement - negotiated at arm's lengtl1 - constitutes a substantial step toward
23
tl1at determination.
24
Furtl1er, CCP 1021.5 autl1orizes courts to award attorneys' fees to any plaintiff who brings
25
about a public benefit. Courts have repeatedly acknowledged that "privately initiated lawsuits are
26
often essential to tl1e effectuation of tl1e fundamental public policies embodied in constitutional or
27
statutory provision, and tl1at, witl1out some mechanism autl10rizing tl1e award of attorney fees,
28
6
AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
private action to enforce such important public policies will as practical matter frequently be
2
infeasible." Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n v. City Council, 23 Cal. 3d 917,933 (1979). Here,
3
plaintiff is the successful party, having secured a clear and reasonable warning or reformulation, as
4
well as a civil penalty. Further, the Attorney General's Proposition 65 Settlement Guidelines
5
recognize that a warning or reformulation - here verified by defendant's obligation to test the subject
6
product for lead concentrations - satisfies the "public benefit" prong of CCP 1021.5. Sec 11 CCR
7
3201(b)(l) and (2). Finally, neitl1er tl1e Attorney General, nor any of the other county and city
8
authorities notified of the subject violations took over the prosecution of this matter witl1in the 60-
9
day notice period. Accordingly, this satisfies the "necessity of private enforcement" prong of 1021.5.
10
Without this private action, Defendant's alleged conduct and violations would have likely gone
11
wholly unaddressed.
12
~ Finally, Plaintiff's counsels have detailed their hourly rates, experience, and efforts expanded
Q_ C

~ -~ 13
0 ~ throughout in tl1e accompanying declarations. To date, they have expended 118 hours in connection
0::: 2
lJ !::. 14
with tl1e matter, and expect to spend an additional tlrree to four hours tlrrough tl1e hearing on this
5- ·i 15
~ 1 action. The fee awarded results in virtually no multiplier to counsel and is eminently reasonable.
16
~ 1. The Penalty Is Reasonable Under H&S Code Sec. 25249.7(f)(4)(C)
17
In light of tl1e moderate nature and severity of tl1e alleged violation, tl1e good faitl1 and
18
cooperative measures taken by Defendant, and tl1e appropriate deterrent to Defendant and, likely,
19
tl1e Gluten Free Egg Replacer industry as whole, tl1e proposed penalty of $16,000.00 is reasonable.
20
a. The nature and severity of the violation
21
The nature of the alleged violation is tl1at Defendant distributed and sold its Gluten Free Egg
22
Replacer, which, by serving size, contained a reproductive toxicant - lead - in excess of tl1e MADL
23
of 0.5 micrograms. An MADL is typically set by OEHHA at an intentionally low level - 1/l000th
24
the level believed to cause reproductive harm. 27 CCR 25801. While Plaintiff's pre-notice test
25
results showed lead levels several times tl1e MADL- requiring a clear and reasonable warning - the
26
level in question was, in fact, well below 1,000 times underlying tl1e MADL1 . Accordingly, Plaintiff
27
1 'Inimposing a proper penalty, H&S Code Sec. 25249.7(b)(2) also suggests the Court consider the "number'' and
28 "extent" of the alleged violations. If, in fact, the number of violations has been formally adjudicated, evaluation under
7
AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
submits the nature and severity of the subject violation is best described as moderate.
2
b. Defendant's good faith measures
3
Defendant herein has acted very creditably throughout this matter, indeed, there is no
4
evidence to suggest Defendant acted maliciously in connection with its sale or distribution of the
5
product. Defendant has been very cooperative in providing Plaintiff with any information requested,
6
and, consistent with the aims of the Act, has been amenable to crafting an appropriate resolution.
7
c. The economic effect of the penalty on the violator, and its deterrent effect on
8
Defendant and the industiy
9
The subject non-contingent penalty of $16,000 is eminently reasonable, particularly when
10
viewed against recent similar approved resolutions under tl1e Act
11
The penalty herein is comparable to this figure. In addition, unlike other "ordinary and
12
j necessary: expenditures, Defendant receives no federal income tax deduction for penalties paid
Q_ C
::) -~ 13
O E under the Act' . In short, tl1e penalty is comparable to the average, but neither lenient nor
0::: 0

l? ~ 14
s ·i 15
draconian, yet large enough to deter this Defendant and others from future violations3 •

~ l II
16
~ II
17
II
18
II
19
II
20
II
21
22 this factor is a relatively easier task. Not so in the settlement context where, as here, numerous unresolved issues affect
the ultimate result. For example, had this matter not settled, Plaintiff would expect Defendant to argue that: (1) All or a
23 significant portion oftl1e lead contained in the subject product is "naturally occurring," providing it a complete defense;
(2) All or significant portion of any unwarned consumer exposures to lead were not done "knowingly" and
24 "intentionally," and accordingly Plaintiff cannot prove a violation pursuant to H&S Code Sec. 25249.6; (3) Not all lots or
batches of the subject product contained levels of lead in excess of the MADL, and should therefore are not in violation
of the Act; and (4) the average consumer's consumption patterns, averaged over some period of time, do not resulti.J1 a
25 daily exposure in excess of tl1e MADL. Accordi.J1gly, this factor is generally of little utility i.J1 considering a resolution
m1der the Act.
26 2 ' 26 U.S.C. Section 162(t) prohibits any federal tax deduction for "any fine or similar penalty paid to a government
for
the violation of any law."
27 3 ' Indeed, the cost of testing a consumer product for levels of lead, utilizi.J1g i.J1ductively-couples plasma-mass
spectrometry, is typically a few hundred dollars. Plai.J1tiff presumes Defendant and others similarly situated would prefer
28 to bear the expense of proper future testi.J1g, rather than risk the much larger outlay attendant to violations of the act.
8
AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
IV. CONCLUSION
2
The parties herein have committed substantial time and resources to investigating,
3
prosecuting and ultimately resolving this matter. Inasmuch as the proposed ConsentJu dgment
4
meets all requiremen ts under California law, Plaintiff respectfully requests it be entered, and this
5
litigation brought to a timely close4 .
6

7
DATED: May Y..., 2023
8

9
T .
10 Attomgy or amtiff
TAMAR KALOUSTIAN
11

12
~
0... C:
=> -~ 13
0 ~
0::: _g
l'.J !:::. 14
s ·I 15
~ l
16
~
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 4• Plaintiff expects Defendant will not oppose the instant motion.
9
AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM
OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1 Caspar Jivalagian, Esq., State Bar No.: 282818
Vache Thomass ian, Esq., State Bar No.: 289053
2 Tro Krikorian, Esq., State Bar No.: 317183
KIT IAW GROUP, Ll..P
3 230 N. Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
Glendale, California 91206
4 Telephon e: 1-818-507-8525
Facsimile: 1-818-507-8588
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 TAMAR KALOU STIAN

7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9

11
TAMAR KALOUS TIAN, in the public interest, Case No.: 22STCV38062
12
d Plaintiff, AMENDED DECLARATION OF TRO KRIKORIAN
Q_ C
::) -~ 13 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
v. CONSENT JUDGMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF
~j 14 TAMAR KALOUSTIAN, AND DEFENDANT BOB's
lJ i::.
s ·I RED MILL NATURAL FOODS, INC.

E,,~ 15

16
Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, [Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25249.7( f)]

~
17 Date: : May 19, 2023
Defendants. Time: 8:30 AM
18
Dept.: 76
19
Complain t Filed: December 6, 2022
20

28
1
AMENDED DECLARATION OF TRO KRIKORIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT
JUDGMENT BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF TAMAR KALOUSTIAN, AND DEFENDANT BOB's RED MILL NATURAL FOODS, INC.
1 DECLARATION OF TRO KRIKORIAN

2
I, Tro Krikorian, declare:
3
1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all Courts of the State of California. I
4
am an attorney of record for the Plaintiffs herein. If called upon as a witness, I would and could
5
competently testify to tl1e matters stated herein.
6

7 2. In April 2022, my firm began its investigation of Defendant herein, specifically, whetl1er

8 Defendant's "Gluten Free Egg Replacer" (the "Covered Product") a food product sold at retail to

9 consumers in the State of California, contained excessive levels of Lead.
10
3. The State of California has officially listed lead as a chemical known to cause cancer,
11
developmental toxicity and reproductive harm.
12
~ 4. On April 22, 2022, Plaintiff confirmed, tlrrough third-party certified laboratory testing
Q_ C

::::J ~ 13
Qg results using inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry procedures, that tl1e Subject Product
CY. ~ 14
~1 15 contained lead at levels actionable pursuant to California Healtl1 & Safety Code Section 25249.6.
~ l
16 5. On May 19, 2022 my flflll prepared and served a Notice of Violation of Healtl1 and
~
17 Safety Code Section 25249.5, et seq. (the "Notice") on Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc. ("BRM")
18 the entity believed to be the manufacturer and primary distributor of the Covered Product. On
19
September 21, 2022, my finn prepared and filed an amended Notice, serving tl1e proper retailer as an
20
alleged violator. A true and correct copy of tl1e amended Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
21
6. As required under Health and Safety Code Section 25249.7(d), my firm also served tl1e
22
23 California Attorney General, tl1e District Attorneys of tl1e 58 counties in tl1e State of California, and tl1e

24 City Attorneys of any city having a population greater than 750,000.

25 7. At no time have any of tl1e public prosecutors served witl1 the required Notice
26 commenced any action in connection tl1erewitl1.
27

28
2
AMENDED DECLARATION OF TRO KRIKORIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF TAMAR KALOUSTIAN, AND DEFENDANT BOB's RED MILL NATURAL FOODS, INC.
1 8. On December 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant action, alleging violations of California

2 Health & Safety Code Section 25249.6. A lrue and correct copy of the complaint is attached hereto as
3
Exhibit B.
4
9. The parties have cooperated throughout, exchanging information and documentation
5
to enable them to thoroughly assess the matter.
6
10. Ultimately, the parties have agreed to terms of a settlement, embodied within a
7
g stipulated form of [Proposed] ConsentJudgment, true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as

9 Exhibit C.

10 11. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Sec. 25249.7(£) and 11 CCR Sec. 3003, the
11
proposed ConsentJudgment was submitted to the California Attorney General on May 4, 2023.
12
~ 12. Beginning one hundred twenty (120) days after the Effective Date, BRM shall be
Q_ C:

=> ·~ 13
0 ~ permanently enjoined from manufacturing for sale in the State of California, "Distributing into the State
Cl:'.'. 2
CJ !::. 14
s ·i 15
of California," or directly selling in the State of California, any Covered Product that exposes a person
~ ]
16 to a daily lead exposure level of more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day unless it meets the warning
~
17 requirements. The injunctive relief in Section 3 does not apply to any Covered Product that was

18 packaged, distributed, shipped or sold by BRM prior to the Compliance Date. All claims as to such
19
Covered Product are released in this ConsentJudgment. As used in this Consentjudgment, die term
20
"Distributing into the State of California" shall mean to directly ship a Covered Product into California
21
for sale in California or to sell a Covered Product to a distributor diat BRM knows or has reason to
22
know will sell the Covered Product in California. For purposes of this Consent Judgment, the "Daily
23
24 Lead Exposure Level" shall be measured in micrograms, and shall be calculated using the following

25 formula: micrograms of lead per gram of product, multiplied by grams of product per serving of the

26 product (using die largest serving size appearing on the product label), multiplied by servings of the
27
28
3
AMENDED DECLARATION OF TRO KRIKORIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF TAMAR KALOUSTIAN, AND DEFENDANT BOB's RED MILL NATURAL FOODS, INC.
1 product per day (using the largest number of recommended daily servings appearing on the label),

2 which equals micrograms of lead exposure per day. If the label contains no recommended daily
3
servings, then the number of recommended daily servings shall be one.
4
13. The ConsentJudgment further requires defendant to pay a civil penalty in the amount
5
of $16,000. This amount is supported by Proposition 65's statutory criteria, serves the public interest,
6
and is reasonable in light of the facts of this matter. Plaintiff further submits the penalty is appropriate
7

8 given a number of mitigating factors, including, without limitation: (1) Defendant's willingness to agree,

9 pursuant to the terms of the Consent Judgment, to maintain an appropriate warning to consumers

10 directly on tl1e label of the packaging or container of the Covered Product that it contains Lead, and to
11
warn of its reproductive toxicity and carcinogenic potential; (2) the relatively low lead levels contained
12
in tl1e Subject Product which, while well in excess of the safe harbor Maximum Allowable Dosage Level
~ -~ 13
0Cl:'. _g~ of 0.5 micrograms per grams of product, were nonetheless well below the tl1ousand-fold level known
CJ !::. 14
s -i to cause reproductive toxicity.

~ l :: ATTORNEY AND STAFF BILLING RATES

17 I request that tl1e Court approve my rate of $400 per hour. I received my law degree
18 from University of West Los Angeles and was admitted to tl1e California State Bar in 2017. I hold a
19
Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Accounting as well as a Master's Degree in Business
20
Administration. I am currently a litigation Attorney at KJT Law Group, LLP. Among other tasks, I
21
manage tl1e Environmental Law Department, assist with document drafting, research, review of
22
23 information, and make court appearances. I have spent a substantial portion of time litigating matters

24 in both State and Federal jurisdictions. In recent years, I have begun litigating matters on behalf of

25 consumers and tl1e general public under Proposition 65, the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
26 Enforcement Act of 1986. I focus on all aspects of litigation, including trial preparation, conducting
27

28
4
AMENDED DECLARATION OF TRO KRIKORIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF TAMAR KALOUSTIAN, AND DEFENDANT BOB's RED MILL NATURAL FOODS, INC.
1 depositions of percipient and expert witnesses, extensive motion practice, summary judgment motions,

2 expert discovery, written discovery, legal research and writing, and litigation procedure, among other
3
skills. A true and correct copy of my professional biography is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
4
2. I request that the Court approve the hourly rate of $550 for Vache Thomassian. Mr.
5
Thomassian received his law degree from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles and was admitted to the
6
California State Bar in 2013. After law school he continued his academic pursuits by obtaining a Masters
7

8 of International Affairs from Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA)

9 where his area of concentration was Economic and Political Development with a specialization in

10 International Conflict Resolution. At this present day, he is a managing partner of KJT Law Group,
11
LLP, a boutique law firm in Glendale, California. Mr. Thomassian has spent a substantial portion of
12
~ time litigating. personal injury and employment wage and hour cases on behalf of plaintiffs. His rate
0... C:
:::> -~ 13
o g comports with the hourly rates charged by local attorneys possessing similar skill and experience, for
er:: _g
l'J t::. 14
s ·I 15
similar litigation.
~ ]
16 3. I request that the Court approve the hourly rate of $550 for Caspar Jivalagian. Mr.
~
17 Jivalagian received his law degree from Southwestern Law School and was admitted to the California

18 State Bar in 2012. Mr. Jivalagian is also a managing partner of KJT Law Group, LLP. Mr. Jivalagian
19
has spent a substantial portion of time litigating personal injury and workers' compensation cases on
20
behalf of plaintiffs. His rate comports with the hourly rates charged by local attorneys possessing similar
21
skill and experience
22

23
4. TIME SHEETS DETAIL THE WORK PERFORMED IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES

24 To date, I have expended 62 hours on this matter. Mr. Thomassian's work totaled 42 hours

25 and worked on many of the pre-litigation work. Mr. Jivalagian's work totaled 14 hours. Much of the
26 time spent supervising and directing staff was not recorded.
27

28
s
AMENDED DECLARATION OF TRO KRIKORIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF TAMAR KALOUSTIAN, AND DEFENDANT BOB's RED MILL NATURAL FOODS, INC.
1 For a total lodestar of $59,000, on this case expended as follows:

2 21.5 hours - Pre-litigation Research & Development.
3
Background research on the Covered Product. review of the purchased product and
4
investigation file; analysis of the test report; research on each violator and corporate structure,
5
research on Lead found in the Covered Product, research on potential overlapping of prior pre-
6
suit notices, settlements/consent judgments and prior violations of Proposition 65 by violator(s).
7

8 Preparation and filing of the 60 Day Notices of Intent to Sue, among other tasks.

9 11 hours - Exchange and Review of Information.

10 Preparation and Review of Confidentiality Agreement. Review and interpretation of the
11
exchanged information. Analysis of the potential exposure.
12
~ 8 hours - Preparation, Review, and Filing of Complaint.
(l_ C

:::H 13
0 ~
0::: _g 18 hours - Formal Discovery.
CJ ~ 14
s ·i 15
Preparation and service of written discovery requests; Form Interrogatories, Requests for
~ ]
16 Admission, Requests for Production, and Special Interrogatories.
~
17 11.5 hours - litigation Strategy, Research of Defenses and internal review of file.

18 General research and review of asserted defenses, new developments, and specific product
19
related matters. Internal meetings with co-counsel and file review throughout.
20
9.5 hours - ConsentJudgment Tenns & Modifications.
21
Drafting, review, and amendments of the terms of the consent judgment.
22
8.5 hours - Preparation, Review, and Filing of Motion Packet.
23

24 Preparation of motion, memorandum, declaration and exhibits in connection with motion

25 packet for approval.

26 9.5 hours - Communications with Opposing Counsel Throughout.
27

28
6
AMENDED DECLARATION OF TRO KRIKORIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF TAMAR KALOUSTIAN, AND DEFENDANT BOB's RED MILL NATURAL FOODS, INC.
1 12 hours - Communic ations with Client Throughou t.

2 8.5 hours - Communic ations with Experts Throughou t.
3 In addition, my finn has advanced approximat ely $3,500.00 in unreimbur sed expenses in this
4
matter.
5
I anticipate expending an additional three to four hours of attorney time in connection with this
6
matter, including, without limitation, preparing for and attending the hearing on this motion.
7

8 On May 1, 2023, the California Attorney General's Office waived the 45 days required under

9 11 CCR Section 3008 through an electronic correspond ence sent by Susan S. Fiering, Deputy Attorney

10 General, Retired Annuitant.
11 Executed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California this _tf_~ay of
12
~ May, 2023.
Q_ C

:J ·~ 13
0 ~
a'. .2
l'.) '::. 14
s ·l 15
~ ]
16
~
17
Attorney for Plaintiff
18 TAMAR KALOUST IAN
19

28
7
AMENDED DECLARATION OF TRO KRIKORIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF TAMAR KALOUSTIAN, AND DEFENDANT BOB's RED MILL NATURAL FOODS, INC.
EXHIBIT A
230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
Glendale, CA 91206
KJTLAWGROUPLLP P: 818.507.8525
Jivalagian I Thomassian F: 818.507.8588
info@KJTLawGroup.com
September 21, 2022

SIXTY-DAY NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE FOR VIOLATION OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER AND
TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1986
(Cal. Health & Safety Code§ 25249.5, et seq.) ("Proposition 65")

Re: Violations of Proposition 65 concerning Egg Replacer, containing Lead.

Dear Alleged Violators and Public Enforcement Agencies:

Tamar Kaloustian ("Claimant"), serves this Notice of Violation ("Notice") on Bob's Red Mill
Natural Foods, Inc.; Whole Foods Market California, Inc. (collectively "Violators") pursuant to
and in compliance widi Proposition 65. KJT Law Group, ILP represents Tamar Kaloustian
(Claimant). This Notice satisfies a prerequisite for Claimant to commence an action against
Violators in any Superior Court of California to enforce Proposition 65. The violations addressed
by diis Notice occurred at numerous locations in each county in California as reflec

Case Info

Judge

Christopher K. Lui Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 05, 2023

Case Filing Date

December 06, 2022

County

Parties

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

Stipulation,Agreement: TAMAR KALOUSTIAN, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST VS BOB'S RED MILL NATURAL FOODS, INC.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties