On July 11, 2017 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Englander, Peter,
and
Arctic Cat Inc.,
Does 1 To 150, Inclusive,
for civil
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
NMA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Feb-27-2018 9:50 am
Case Number: CGC-17-560070
Filing Date: Feb-27-2018 9:50
Filed by: GINA GONZALES
Image: 06232184
ORDER
PETER ENGLANDER VS. ARCTIC CAT INC. ET AL
001006232184
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.om YN DH F Bw YY =
wee
BRRRREBBREBRSEeREBTRAEBE ES
Laralei Paras, State Bar No. 203319
THE CHANLER GROUP
2560 Ninth Street
Parker Plaza, Suite 214
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 848-8880
Facsimile: (510) 848-8118
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PETER ENGLANDER
San Francisco County Superior Court
FEB 27 2018
CLERK OF THE COURT
ofl Pongae
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
PETER ENGLANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARCTIC CAT INC., and DOES 1-150,
inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. CGC-17-§60070
[PROPESESTO ER APPROVING
PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT
AND CONSENT JUDGMENT
Date: February 27, 2018
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 302
Judge: Hon. Hareld-E-Kahn..
RICHARD B. ULMER
Reservation No.: 01110227-01
ORDER PURSUANT TO TERMS OF CONSENT JUDGMENTCo wm YN DAW FF Bw YN eS
Row NY eS Boe Be eB Be eB ee
8B = S$ Se 3 aABDBR BRE GS
In the above-entitled action, Plaintiff Peter Englander and Defendant Arctic Cat Inc.
(collectively, the “Parties”) having agreed through their respective counsel that judgment be
entered pursuant to the terms of the [Proposed] Consent Judgment entered into by the above-
referenced Parties (“Consent Judgment”) and attached to the Judgment Pursuant to Terms of
Proposition 65 Settlement and Consent Judgment as Exhibit 1; and after consideration of the
papers submitted and the arguments presented, the Court finds that the settlement agreement
memorialized in the Consent Judgment meets the criteria established by Health and Safety Code
§ 25249.7(f), in that:
1. The injunctive relief required by the settlement complies with Proposition 65;
2. The reimbursement of fees and costs to be paid pursuant to the Parties’ Consent
Judgment is reasonable under California law; and
3. The civil penalty amount to be paid pursuant to the Parties’ Consent Judgment is
reasonable,
Accordingly, the Motion for Approval of the Proposition 65 Settlement is GRANTED. NO offosy
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/ 24/16 faAd BLAS. (Ulne)
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COUR
RICHARD B. ULMER
ORDER PURSUANT TO TERMS OF CONSENT JUDGMENT
Document Filed Date
February 27, 2018
Case Filing Date
July 11, 2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
NMA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Feb-27-2018 9:50 am Case Number: CGC-17-560070 Filing Date: Feb-27-2018 9:50 Filed by: GINA GONZALES Image: 06232184 ORDER PETER ENGLANDER VS. ARCTIC CAT INC. ET AL 001006232184 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.om YN DH F Bw YY = wee BRRRREBBREBRSEeREBTRAEBE ES Laralei Paras, State Bar No. 203319 THE CHANLER GROUP 2560 Ninth Street Parker Plaza, Suite 214 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 848-8880 Facsimile: (510) 848-8118 Attorneys for Plaintiff PETER ENGLANDER San Francisco County Superior Court FEB 27 2018 CLERK OF THE COURT ofl Pongae Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION PETER ENGLANDER, Plaintiff, v. ARCTIC CAT INC., and DOES 1-150, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CGC-17-§60070 [PROPESESTO ER APPROVING PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENT Date: February 27, 2018 Time: 9:30 a.m. Courtroom: 302 Judge: Hon. Hareld-E-Kahn.. RICHARD B. ULMER Reservation No.: 01110227-01 ORDER PURSUANT TO TERMS OF CONSENT JUDGMENTCo wm YN DAW FF Bw YN eS Row NY eS Boe Be eB Be eB ee 8B = S$ Se 3 aABDBR BRE GS In the above-entitled action, Plaintiff Peter Englander and Defendant Arctic Cat Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”) having agreed through their respective counsel that judgment be entered pursuant to the terms of the [Proposed] Consent Judgment entered into by the above- referenced Parties (“Consent Judgment”) and attached to the Judgment Pursuant to Terms of Proposition 65 Settlement and Consent Judgment as Exhibit 1; and after consideration of the papers submitted and the arguments presented, the Court finds that the settlement agreement memorialized in the Consent Judgment meets the criteria established by Health and Safety Code § 25249.7(f), in that: 1. The injunctive relief required by the settlement complies with Proposition 65; 2. The reimbursement of fees and costs to be paid pursuant to the Parties’ Consent Judgment is reasonable under California law; and 3. The civil penalty amount to be paid pursuant to the Parties’ Consent Judgment is reasonable, Accordingly, the Motion for Approval of the Proposition 65 Settlement is GRANTED. NO offosy IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 2/ 24/16 faAd BLAS. (Ulne) JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COUR RICHARD B. ULMER ORDER PURSUANT TO TERMS OF CONSENT JUDGMENT