Preview
Josh Voorhees, State Bar No. 241436
Christopher Tuttle, State Bar No. 264545
THE CHANLER GROUP
2560 Ninth Street
Parker Plaza, Suite 214
Berkeley, CA 94710-2565
Telephone: (510) 848-8880
Facsimile: (510) 848-8118
josh@chanler.com
etuttle@chanler.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LAURENCE VINOCUR
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
05/22/2018
Clerk of the Court
BY: SANDRA SCHIRO-
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
LAURENCE VINOCUR,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
RUSTICO, LLC; et al,
Defendants.
Case No. CGC-17-560768
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO TERMS OF
PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND
CONSENT JUDGMENTTO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on May 18, 2018, the Court signed and entered a Judgment
Pursuant to Terms of Proposition 65 Settlement and Consent Judgment. A true and correct copy of
the Judgment is attached as Exhibit 1.
Dated: May 22, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
THE CHANLER GROUP
By:
Chvitopher Tuttle
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LAURENCE VINOCUR
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENTEXHIBIT 13]
1
13 |)
|
i
Ik
|
16 |)
!
|
i
i
|
| Josh Voorhees, State Bar No. 241436
Christopher Tuttle, State Bar No, 264545
|| THE CHANLER GROUP
2560 Ninth Street
Parker Plaza, Suite 214
Berkeley, C CA aA710-2565
Attorneys for Plaintiff
' LAURENCE VINOCUR
San ‘ois Le Court
MAY 1.8 2018
GLEN OF ps COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
LAURENCE VINOCUR, ‘Case No. CG 560768
Plaintiff, IMENT PURSUANT
Vv.
RUSTICO LLC, et al.,
Defendant.
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO TERMS OF PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENT |
TERMS OF PROPOSITION 65
SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT
| JODGMENT
“Date: May 18, 2018
| Time: 9:30 a.m.
| Dept: 302
| Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn
| Reservation No.: 03290518-06em YW DA Hw Bw wD
mea
® 208 &®A RGB Ss
19
Plaintiff Laurence Vinocur and defendant Rustico LLC having agreed through their
séspective counsel that Judgment be entered pursuant to the terms of their settlement
agreement in the form of a stipulated judgment (“Consent judgment”), and following this
Court’s issuance of an order approving their Proposition 65 settlement and Consent
|| Judgment, and for good cause being shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, pursuant to
Health and Safety Code section 25249.7(f)(4) and Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6,
judgment is hereby entered in accordance with the terms of the Consent Judgment attached
hereto as Exhibit !. By stipulation of the parties, the Court will retain jurisdiction to
enforce the terms of the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
If IS SO ORDERED.
MAY. 4 8 2018 tu bff,
Dated: oe 7 Lf 1h.
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
RICHARD B, ULMER
1
|| “ODGMENT PURSUANT TO TERMS OF PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENTEXHIBIT 1Clifford Chanler, State Bar No. 135534
i Tuttle, State Bar No. 264545
THE ER GROUP
5
Facsimile Gio} saeeiis
COM
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
LAURENCE VINOCUR, Case No: CGC-17-560768
Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENT
ve | Health & Safety Code § 25249.6 et seq. and
| Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 )
RUSTICO LLC, et al. |
Defendants.
a ~ SRT TRUERTow. wma NAH & Bw ye
L INTRODUCTION
Li Parties
This Consent Judgment is entered into by and between plaintiff Laurence Vinocur
(Vinecur”), and Rustico LLC, (“Rustico”), with Vinocur and Rustico each individually referred to
asa “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
12 “Plaintiff
‘Vinoour is an individual residing in California who seeks to promote awareness of exposures
to toxic chemicals and to improve human health by reducing ot eliminating hazardous substances
contained in consumer products.
13 Defendant
Rustico employs ten or more individuals and is a “person in the course of doing business” for |
i; purposes of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act af 1986, Health and Safety Code
section 25249.6 et seq. (“Proposition 65”).
14 General Allegations
Vinocur alleges that Rustico imports, sells, or distributes for sale in California, luggage tags
I with viny/EVC components that contain di(2-ethythexyl)phthalate (“‘DEHP”) without first providing
the exposure waming required by Proposition 65, DEHP is listed pursuant to Proposition 65 ase
chemical known to cauise birth defects or other reproductive harm. Rustico generally denies these
| allegations.
15 Product Description
The products covered by this Consent Judgment are luggage tags with viny/PVC components
including, but not limited to, the Rustico Luggage Tag, #400005387449 that are mavufactured,
imported, distributed, sold and/or offered for sale in California by Rustico (“Products”).
1.6 Notice of Violation
On April 27, 2017, Vinocur served Rustico, and the requisite public enforcement agencies
with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”) alleging that Rustico violated Proposition 653 by failing |
to wam its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to
1
|oe YA HW BW Ne
27
28 y
| DEHP from the Products. No public enforeer hes commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action :
to enforce the violations alleged in the Notice.
L7— Complaint
On August 16,2017, Vinoeur filed the instant action (“Complaint”), tanaing Rastico asa
| defendant for the alleged violations of Health and Safety Code section 25249.6 that are the subject of |
4 the Notice. }
| 18 Ne Admission
Rustico denies the material, factual, and legal allegations contained in the Notice and I
Complaint, and maintnins that all of the products thas sold'anddistibuted forsale in Californie,
including the Products, have been, and aren compliance with all laws. Nothing in this Consent
Judgment shall be-construed as an admission of any fact, finding, conclusion of law, issue of law, or
violation of law, nor shall compliance with this Consent Judgment constitute or be construed as an
adonission of any fact, finding, conclusion of law, iseue of law, or violation of law. This Section shall |
not, however, diminish dr otherwise affect Rusticd’s obligations, responsibilities, and duties under i
/ this Consent Judgment.
For purposes of this Consent Judgment only, the Parties stipulate that this Court hes
4 jovisdiction over Rustico as to the allegetions in the Complaint, that venti is proper in the County of |
| son Francisco, and tha! the Court ha jurisdiction to enter and enfore th provisions of his Const |
Judgment pursuant to Proposition 65 and Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. |
: 140 Effective Date
For purposes of this Consent Judgment, the term “Effective Date” means the date on which
I; the Court approves this Consent Judgment, including any unopposed teftative ruling granting
[f approval of this Consent Judgment,
| 9. ENJUNCTIVE RELIEF; FRODUCT REFORMULATION AND WARNINGS
2.1 Commitment to Reformulate or Warn 1
Commencing on the Effective Date and continuing thereafter, Rustico agrees to only i
| manufacture, import, distribute, sell or offer for sale in California, Products that are either (a)
AAT TOG aReformulated Products as defined by Section 2.2, below, ot (b) Products that beara clear and
reasonable health hazard warning pursuant to Section 2.3 below.
2.2 Reformulation Standard
| For the purposes of this Consent Judgment, “Reformulated Products” are defined as Products
that contain DEHP in concentrations that do not exceed 1,000 parts per million (0.1%) when analyzed |
| pursuant fo U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) sting méthodologies 35804 ond 8270C |
of equivalent methodologies utilized by state or federal agencies for the purpose of determining
DEHP content in a solid substance.
2.3 Clear and Reasonable Warnings
‘Comméncing on the Effective Date and continuing thereafter, for any Products offered for
sale in California by Rustico that are not Reformulated Products, Rustico agrees to only offer such
12 | Products for sale with a clear and reasonable wamitig in a¢cordance with this Section, ar Title 27
13 | Califomia Code of Regulations section 25602 and 25603, Rustico further agrees that the warning
14 | will be prominently placed with such conspicucusness when compared with other words, statements, _
15) designs, or devices as to render it likely to be read and understood by an ordinary individual under
16 | customary conditions before purchase or use. For purposes of this Consent Judgment, a clear and
_rssonble wang sl const of waning fish to pened onthe package, abe go
directly to a Product sold in California and containing the following statement: 7 /
WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals |
including DEHP, which is known to the
State of California to cause birth defects
or other reproductive harm. For more
information go to pww.P65Waminus.ca. nov.
S © oe I A th mh ww
=
=
| 3. MONETARY SETTLEMENT TERMS
3.1. Civil Penalty Payments
Pursuant to Health and Safety Cade section 25249.7(b), and in settlement of all the claims |
| reforsed to in the Notice, Complaint, and this Consent Judgment, Rustico shall pay $2,000 fmreivit
| penalties. ‘The civil'penalty payment shall be allocated according to Health and Safety Code section
| 25949-12(6)(1) and (@), with seventy-five parcent (75%) of the penalty peid to the California Officeco oOo WA DH BR wD WD
/ amount af $500 and a check made payable to “OEHHA” in the amount of $1,500 to be delivered to
4 be resolved after the material terms of this Consent Judgment had been settled. Shartly after the
California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 for all work performed through the mutual
(25%) of the penalty retained by Vinocur. ‘Vinocur’s counsel shall be responsible for delivering
OEHHA’s portion of any penalty payment(s) made under this Consent Judgment. Rustico shall
provide its payment ir a check made payable to “Laurence Vinocur, Client Trust Account” in the |
the address provided in Section 3.3, below.
3.2 Reimbursement of Attorney's Fees and Costs
The patties acknowledge that Vinocur and his counsel offered to resolve this dispute without
reaching terms on the amount of fees and costs to be reimbursed to them, thereby leaving the issue to
other settlement terms had been finalized, the Parties negotiated the compensation die to Vinocur and’
his counsel under general contract principles and the private attorney general doctrine codified at
execution of this Consent Judgment, and court approval of the same. Under these legal principles,
1) Rustico shall pay $14,000 for all fees and costs incurred by Vinocur investigating, bringing this
4 matter to Rustico’s attention, litigating and negotiating a settlement in the public interest. Rustico’s
| payment shall be delivered to the address in Section 3.4 in a check payable to “The Chanter Group.”
|
|
|
33 Payment Timing; Payments Held in Trust |
}
All payments due under this Consent Judgment shall be held in trust until sich time asthe
|
i
\
|
‘| Court approves the Parties’ settlement, Within five (5) days of the date that this Consent Judgment is |
fully executed by the Parties, all payments due under this agreement shall be delivered to Rustico's
with written confirmation upon its receipt of the settlement payments, Within five days of the
| Bffective Date, Rustico’s counsel shall deliver the civil penalty and attomeys* fee reimbursement |
payments to Vinocur’s counsel.
3.4 Payment Address
All payments required by this Consent Judgment shall be delivered to: |
The-Chanler Group. |
Attn: Proposition 65 Controller !
2560 Ninth Street
Parker Plaza, Suite 214 a nie 4
CONSENT JUDGMENT “oS © Oo we A Rh RW RD
Berkeley, CA 94710
4, CLAIMS COVERED AND RELEASED
41 Vinocur’s Public Release of Proposition 65 Claims
Vinocur, acting on his own behalf and in the public interest, releases Rustico and its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliated entities inder common ownership, directors, officers, employecs, and
attomeys (“Releasees"), and each entity to wham Rustico diredtly or indirectly distributes or sells
! thé Products including, without limitation, its downstreani customers, distributors, wholesalers, and
retailers ("Downstream Reléasees”) for any violation arising inder Proposition 65 pertaining to the
failute to warn about exposures tp DBHP from Products gold or distributed for sale by Rustico prior
to the Effective Date, as set forth in the Notice. . Complianice with the terms of this Consent
Judgment coisstitutes compliance with Proposition 65 with respect to exposures to DEHP from
Products sold or distributed for sale by Rustico after the Effective Date.
42 — Vinocur’s Individual Release of Claims
Vinocur, in his individual capacity only and not in any representative capacity, also provides a:
43 Rustico’s Release of Vinocur
Rustico, on its own behalf, and on bebalf of its past and current agents, representatives,
E attomeys, successors, and assignees, hereby waives any and all claims against Vinocur, and his
4 attorneys and other representatives, for any and all actions taken or statements made by Vinocur,
‘and his attomeys and other representatives, whether in the course of itivestigating claims, otherwise f
seeking to‘enforce Proposition 65 against it in this matter, or with respect to the Products.
” release to Rustico, Releases, and Downstream Releasees, which shall be effective as a full and final
| accord and satisfaction, as a bar to alll actions, causes of-action, obligations, costs, expenses,
p) attorneys” fees, damages, losses, claims, liabilities and demands of Vinocur of any nature, character
: orkind, whether Imown or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, arising out of alleged or actual
4, exposures to DEHP in Products sold or distributed for sale by Rustico before the Effective Date.me
% COURT APPROVAL
24 ‘This Consent Judgment is not effective until it is approved and entered by the Court and shall
3-1 be null end void ifft is not approved and entered by the Court within one year afterit has been fully
4) exeouted by the Parties, or by. such additional time as the Parties may agree in writing. |
5/6 savERARILITY |
6 If, subsequent to the Court’s approval and entry of this Consent Judgment as a judguiént, any |
7 |, provision is held by a court to be unenforceable, the validity of the remaining provisions shail not be j
8 | advessely affected. |
a 7. GOVERNING LAW
10/) The tetms of this Consent Judgment shall be governed by the laws of the State of California
111) and apply within the stato of California. In the event that Proposition 65 is repealed, or is otherwise |
12 | rendered inapplicable by reason of law generally or as to the Prodnots, then Rustioo may provide |
1B i vritten sintice to Vinocur of any asserted change in the law, and shall have no further injumotive
4) obligations pursuant to this Consent Judgment with respect to, and to the extent that, the Products are ‘-
15 | so affected.
16] 8 NOTICE
17' Unless specified herein, all correspondence and notice required by this Consent Judgment
18 | shall be in waiting and sent by: @) pensonal delivery: (i) first-class, registered, or certified mail,
i retim receipt requested; or (iii) a recognized ovemight courier to the following addresses:‘9, COUNTERPARTS: FACSIVILE SIGNATURES
: 10. POST IN At
For Rustico: |
Isaac Childs, President
Rustico LLC
119 North 1380 West
Orem, UT 84057
Salt Lake City, UT 84111 -
For Vinocur:
Proposition 65 Coordinator
The Chanler Group ‘
2560 Ninth Street i
Parker Plaza, Suite 214
Berkeley, CA 94710-2565
Any Party inay, from time to time, specify in writing to the othier, a change of address to which all
‘This Consent Iudgmeit may be executed in counterparts-and by facsimile signature, each of
whith shall be deemed an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall constiftite one and the
same document. 7 i
‘Vinocut agrees to comply with the reporting form requirements referenced in Health and
+ Safety Code section 25249.7(f). The Parties fixtther acknowledge that, pursuant to Health and Safety |
Code sectién 25249.7(D), a noticed motion is required to obtaiirjudicial approval of the settlement,
which miotion Vinocur shall draft and file. In furtherance of obtaining such approval, the Parties
agree'to mutually employ. their best efforts, .and:those of their counsel, to support the entry. of this
agreement as judgment, and to obtain judicial approval of their settletcitt in a timely manner. For
iurposes of this Section, “best efforts” shall in¢lnde, at a minimus, supporting the motion for
approval, responding to any objection that any third-party may file or lodge, and appearing at-the
heating before the Court if so requested.
ar eT1/1. MO TION |
2 | ‘This Consent Judgment may be modified only by: (i) e written agreement of ttre Parties end
3) entry of modified consent judgment thereon by the Cour; of (i) a suocesefie! motion or apptivation
4 | of any Party, snd the entry of'a modified consent judgrnent thereon by the Court.
12, AUTHORIZATION
| ‘The undersigned are authorized to execute this Consent Judgment and acknowledge that they
| have read, understand, and agree to all of the tems and conditions contained herein,
9% AGREED TO: AGREED
16
i, 2ayy2018: Wa Date. ant 4
mei the inca
Been aime ig iF 2
eet CONSENTIUDOMENT
Preview
Josh Voorhees, State Bar No. 241436 Christopher Tuttle, State Bar No. 264545 THE CHANLER GROUP 2560 Ninth Street Parker Plaza, Suite 214 Berkeley, CA 94710-2565 Telephone: (510) 848-8880 Facsimile: (510) 848-8118 josh@chanler.com etuttle@chanler.com Attorneys for Plaintiff LAURENCE VINOCUR ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 05/22/2018 Clerk of the Court BY: SANDRA SCHIRO- Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION LAURENCE VINOCUR, Plaintiff, Vv. RUSTICO, LLC; et al, Defendants. Case No. CGC-17-560768 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO TERMS OF PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENTTO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on May 18, 2018, the Court signed and entered a Judgment Pursuant to Terms of Proposition 65 Settlement and Consent Judgment. A true and correct copy of the Judgment is attached as Exhibit 1. Dated: May 22, 2018 Respectfully submitted, THE CHANLER GROUP By: Chvitopher Tuttle Attorneys for Plaintiff LAURENCE VINOCUR NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENTEXHIBIT 13] 1 13 |) | i Ik | 16 |) ! | i i | | Josh Voorhees, State Bar No. 241436 Christopher Tuttle, State Bar No, 264545 || THE CHANLER GROUP 2560 Ninth Street Parker Plaza, Suite 214 Berkeley, C CA aA710-2565 Attorneys for Plaintiff ' LAURENCE VINOCUR San ‘ois Le Court MAY 1.8 2018 GLEN OF ps COURT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION LAURENCE VINOCUR, ‘Case No. CG 560768 Plaintiff, IMENT PURSUANT Vv. RUSTICO LLC, et al., Defendant. JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO TERMS OF PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENT | TERMS OF PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT | JODGMENT “Date: May 18, 2018 | Time: 9:30 a.m. | Dept: 302 | Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn | Reservation No.: 03290518-06em YW DA Hw Bw wD mea ® 208 &®A RGB Ss 19 Plaintiff Laurence Vinocur and defendant Rustico LLC having agreed through their séspective counsel that Judgment be entered pursuant to the terms of their settlement agreement in the form of a stipulated judgment (“Consent judgment”), and following this Court’s issuance of an order approving their Proposition 65 settlement and Consent || Judgment, and for good cause being shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 25249.7(f)(4) and Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, judgment is hereby entered in accordance with the terms of the Consent Judgment attached hereto as Exhibit !. By stipulation of the parties, the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. If IS SO ORDERED. MAY. 4 8 2018 tu bff, Dated: oe 7 Lf 1h. JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT RICHARD B, ULMER 1 || “ODGMENT PURSUANT TO TERMS OF PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENTEXHIBIT 1Clifford Chanler, State Bar No. 135534 i Tuttle, State Bar No. 264545 THE ER GROUP 5 Facsimile Gio} saeeiis COM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION LAURENCE VINOCUR, Case No: CGC-17-560768 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENT ve | Health & Safety Code § 25249.6 et seq. and | Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 ) RUSTICO LLC, et al. | Defendants. a ~ SRT TRUERTow. wma NAH & Bw ye L INTRODUCTION Li Parties This Consent Judgment is entered into by and between plaintiff Laurence Vinocur (Vinecur”), and Rustico LLC, (“Rustico”), with Vinocur and Rustico each individually referred to asa “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” 12 “Plaintiff ‘Vinoour is an individual residing in California who seeks to promote awareness of exposures to toxic chemicals and to improve human health by reducing ot eliminating hazardous substances contained in consumer products. 13 Defendant Rustico employs ten or more individuals and is a “person in the course of doing business” for | i; purposes of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act af 1986, Health and Safety Code section 25249.6 et seq. (“Proposition 65”). 14 General Allegations Vinocur alleges that Rustico imports, sells, or distributes for sale in California, luggage tags I with viny/EVC components that contain di(2-ethythexyl)phthalate (“‘DEHP”) without first providing the exposure waming required by Proposition 65, DEHP is listed pursuant to Proposition 65 ase chemical known to cauise birth defects or other reproductive harm. Rustico generally denies these | allegations. 15 Product Description The products covered by this Consent Judgment are luggage tags with viny/PVC components including, but not limited to, the Rustico Luggage Tag, #400005387449 that are mavufactured, imported, distributed, sold and/or offered for sale in California by Rustico (“Products”). 1.6 Notice of Violation On April 27, 2017, Vinocur served Rustico, and the requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”) alleging that Rustico violated Proposition 653 by failing | to wam its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to 1 |oe YA HW BW Ne 27 28 y | DEHP from the Products. No public enforeer hes commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action : to enforce the violations alleged in the Notice. L7— Complaint On August 16,2017, Vinoeur filed the instant action (“Complaint”), tanaing Rastico asa | defendant for the alleged violations of Health and Safety Code section 25249.6 that are the subject of | 4 the Notice. } | 18 Ne Admission Rustico denies the material, factual, and legal allegations contained in the Notice and I Complaint, and maintnins that all of the products thas sold'anddistibuted forsale in Californie, including the Products, have been, and aren compliance with all laws. Nothing in this Consent Judgment shall be-construed as an admission of any fact, finding, conclusion of law, issue of law, or violation of law, nor shall compliance with this Consent Judgment constitute or be construed as an adonission of any fact, finding, conclusion of law, iseue of law, or violation of law. This Section shall | not, however, diminish dr otherwise affect Rusticd’s obligations, responsibilities, and duties under i / this Consent Judgment. For purposes of this Consent Judgment only, the Parties stipulate that this Court hes 4 jovisdiction over Rustico as to the allegetions in the Complaint, that venti is proper in the County of | | son Francisco, and tha! the Court ha jurisdiction to enter and enfore th provisions of his Const | Judgment pursuant to Proposition 65 and Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. | : 140 Effective Date For purposes of this Consent Judgment, the term “Effective Date” means the date on which I; the Court approves this Consent Judgment, including any unopposed teftative ruling granting [f approval of this Consent Judgment, | 9. ENJUNCTIVE RELIEF; FRODUCT REFORMULATION AND WARNINGS 2.1 Commitment to Reformulate or Warn 1 Commencing on the Effective Date and continuing thereafter, Rustico agrees to only i | manufacture, import, distribute, sell or offer for sale in California, Products that are either (a) AAT TOG aReformulated Products as defined by Section 2.2, below, ot (b) Products that beara clear and reasonable health hazard warning pursuant to Section 2.3 below. 2.2 Reformulation Standard | For the purposes of this Consent Judgment, “Reformulated Products” are defined as Products that contain DEHP in concentrations that do not exceed 1,000 parts per million (0.1%) when analyzed | | pursuant fo U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) sting méthodologies 35804 ond 8270C | of equivalent methodologies utilized by state or federal agencies for the purpose of determining DEHP content in a solid substance. 2.3 Clear and Reasonable Warnings ‘Comméncing on the Effective Date and continuing thereafter, for any Products offered for sale in California by Rustico that are not Reformulated Products, Rustico agrees to only offer such 12 | Products for sale with a clear and reasonable wamitig in a¢cordance with this Section, ar Title 27 13 | Califomia Code of Regulations section 25602 and 25603, Rustico further agrees that the warning 14 | will be prominently placed with such conspicucusness when compared with other words, statements, _ 15) designs, or devices as to render it likely to be read and understood by an ordinary individual under 16 | customary conditions before purchase or use. For purposes of this Consent Judgment, a clear and _rssonble wang sl const of waning fish to pened onthe package, abe go directly to a Product sold in California and containing the following statement: 7 / WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals | including DEHP, which is known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information go to pww.P65Waminus.ca. nov. S © oe I A th mh ww = = | 3. MONETARY SETTLEMENT TERMS 3.1. Civil Penalty Payments Pursuant to Health and Safety Cade section 25249.7(b), and in settlement of all the claims | | reforsed to in the Notice, Complaint, and this Consent Judgment, Rustico shall pay $2,000 fmreivit | penalties. ‘The civil'penalty payment shall be allocated according to Health and Safety Code section | 25949-12(6)(1) and (@), with seventy-five parcent (75%) of the penalty peid to the California Officeco oOo WA DH BR wD WD / amount af $500 and a check made payable to “OEHHA” in the amount of $1,500 to be delivered to 4 be resolved after the material terms of this Consent Judgment had been settled. Shartly after the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 for all work performed through the mutual (25%) of the penalty retained by Vinocur. ‘Vinocur’s counsel shall be responsible for delivering OEHHA’s portion of any penalty payment(s) made under this Consent Judgment. Rustico shall provide its payment ir a check made payable to “Laurence Vinocur, Client Trust Account” in the | the address provided in Section 3.3, below. 3.2 Reimbursement of Attorney's Fees and Costs The patties acknowledge that Vinocur and his counsel offered to resolve this dispute without reaching terms on the amount of fees and costs to be reimbursed to them, thereby leaving the issue to other settlement terms had been finalized, the Parties negotiated the compensation die to Vinocur and’ his counsel under general contract principles and the private attorney general doctrine codified at execution of this Consent Judgment, and court approval of the same. Under these legal principles, 1) Rustico shall pay $14,000 for all fees and costs incurred by Vinocur investigating, bringing this 4 matter to Rustico’s attention, litigating and negotiating a settlement in the public interest. Rustico’s | payment shall be delivered to the address in Section 3.4 in a check payable to “The Chanter Group.” | | | 33 Payment Timing; Payments Held in Trust | } All payments due under this Consent Judgment shall be held in trust until sich time asthe | i \ | ‘| Court approves the Parties’ settlement, Within five (5) days of the date that this Consent Judgment is | fully executed by the Parties, all payments due under this agreement shall be delivered to Rustico's with written confirmation upon its receipt of the settlement payments, Within five days of the | Bffective Date, Rustico’s counsel shall deliver the civil penalty and attomeys* fee reimbursement | payments to Vinocur’s counsel. 3.4 Payment Address All payments required by this Consent Judgment shall be delivered to: | The-Chanler Group. | Attn: Proposition 65 Controller ! 2560 Ninth Street Parker Plaza, Suite 214 a nie 4 CONSENT JUDGMENT “oS © Oo we A Rh RW RD Berkeley, CA 94710 4, CLAIMS COVERED AND RELEASED 41 Vinocur’s Public Release of Proposition 65 Claims Vinocur, acting on his own behalf and in the public interest, releases Rustico and its parents, subsidiaries, affiliated entities inder common ownership, directors, officers, employecs, and attomeys (“Releasees"), and each entity to wham Rustico diredtly or indirectly distributes or sells ! thé Products including, without limitation, its downstreani customers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers ("Downstream Reléasees”) for any violation arising inder Proposition 65 pertaining to the failute to warn about exposures tp DBHP from Products gold or distributed for sale by Rustico prior to the Effective Date, as set forth in the Notice. . Complianice with the terms of this Consent Judgment coisstitutes compliance with Proposition 65 with respect to exposures to DEHP from Products sold or distributed for sale by Rustico after the Effective Date. 42 — Vinocur’s Individual Release of Claims Vinocur, in his individual capacity only and not in any representative capacity, also provides a: 43 Rustico’s Release of Vinocur Rustico, on its own behalf, and on bebalf of its past and current agents, representatives, E attomeys, successors, and assignees, hereby waives any and all claims against Vinocur, and his 4 attorneys and other representatives, for any and all actions taken or statements made by Vinocur, ‘and his attomeys and other representatives, whether in the course of itivestigating claims, otherwise f seeking to‘enforce Proposition 65 against it in this matter, or with respect to the Products. ” release to Rustico, Releases, and Downstream Releasees, which shall be effective as a full and final | accord and satisfaction, as a bar to alll actions, causes of-action, obligations, costs, expenses, p) attorneys” fees, damages, losses, claims, liabilities and demands of Vinocur of any nature, character : orkind, whether Imown or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, arising out of alleged or actual 4, exposures to DEHP in Products sold or distributed for sale by Rustico before the Effective Date.me % COURT APPROVAL 24 ‘This Consent Judgment is not effective until it is approved and entered by the Court and shall 3-1 be null end void ifft is not approved and entered by the Court within one year afterit has been fully 4) exeouted by the Parties, or by. such additional time as the Parties may agree in writing. | 5/6 savERARILITY | 6 If, subsequent to the Court’s approval and entry of this Consent Judgment as a judguiént, any | 7 |, provision is held by a court to be unenforceable, the validity of the remaining provisions shail not be j 8 | advessely affected. | a 7. GOVERNING LAW 10/) The tetms of this Consent Judgment shall be governed by the laws of the State of California 111) and apply within the stato of California. In the event that Proposition 65 is repealed, or is otherwise | 12 | rendered inapplicable by reason of law generally or as to the Prodnots, then Rustioo may provide | 1B i vritten sintice to Vinocur of any asserted change in the law, and shall have no further injumotive 4) obligations pursuant to this Consent Judgment with respect to, and to the extent that, the Products are ‘- 15 | so affected. 16] 8 NOTICE 17' Unless specified herein, all correspondence and notice required by this Consent Judgment 18 | shall be in waiting and sent by: @) pensonal delivery: (i) first-class, registered, or certified mail, i retim receipt requested; or (iii) a recognized ovemight courier to the following addresses:‘9, COUNTERPARTS: FACSIVILE SIGNATURES : 10. POST IN At For Rustico: | Isaac Childs, President Rustico LLC 119 North 1380 West Orem, UT 84057 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 - For Vinocur: Proposition 65 Coordinator The Chanler Group ‘ 2560 Ninth Street i Parker Plaza, Suite 214 Berkeley, CA 94710-2565 Any Party inay, from time to time, specify in writing to the othier, a change of address to which all ‘This Consent Iudgmeit may be executed in counterparts-and by facsimile signature, each of whith shall be deemed an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall constiftite one and the same document. 7 i ‘Vinocut agrees to comply with the reporting form requirements referenced in Health and + Safety Code section 25249.7(f). The Parties fixtther acknowledge that, pursuant to Health and Safety | Code sectién 25249.7(D), a noticed motion is required to obtaiirjudicial approval of the settlement, which miotion Vinocur shall draft and file. In furtherance of obtaining such approval, the Parties agree'to mutually employ. their best efforts, .and:those of their counsel, to support the entry. of this agreement as judgment, and to obtain judicial approval of their settletcitt in a timely manner. For iurposes of this Section, “best efforts” shall in¢lnde, at a minimus, supporting the motion for approval, responding to any objection that any third-party may file or lodge, and appearing at-the heating before the Court if so requested. ar eT1/1. MO TION | 2 | ‘This Consent Judgment may be modified only by: (i) e written agreement of ttre Parties end 3) entry of modified consent judgment thereon by the Cour; of (i) a suocesefie! motion or apptivation 4 | of any Party, snd the entry of'a modified consent judgrnent thereon by the Court. 12, AUTHORIZATION | ‘The undersigned are authorized to execute this Consent Judgment and acknowledge that they | have read, understand, and agree to all of the tems and conditions contained herein, 9% AGREED TO: AGREED 16 i, 2ayy2018: Wa Date. ant 4 mei the inca Been aime ig iF 2 eet CONSENTIUDOMENT