On June 13, 2016 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Brimer, Russell,
and
Does 1-150, Inclusive,
Spectrum Brands, Inc.,
for civil
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
MUA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jul-19-2017 9:52 am
Case Number: CGC-16-552530
Filing Date: Jul-19-2017 9:52
Filed by: JOSE RIOS-MERIDA
Image: 05950844
ORDER
RUSSELL BRIMER VS. SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC. ET AL
001005950844
Instructions: :
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.uo em NY DH FF YW NY
aaa
eo IAD A BBN SB S
19
Brian C. Johnson, State Bar No. 235965
Kimberly Gates, State Bar No. 282369
THE CHANLER GROUP
2560 Ninth Street
Parker Plaza, Suite 214
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 848-8880
Facsimile: (510) 848-8118
brian@chanler.com
kimberly@chanler.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RUSSELL BRIMER
FI D
[ei
JUL 1 9 2017
BY;
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
RUSSELL BRIMER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC.; et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. CGC-16-552530
WK
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING
PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT
AND CONSENT JUDGMENT
Date: July 19, 2017
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 302
Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn
Reservation No. 05240719-11
{PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROP. 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENTCoO ND Hh BF YB NY
yw NR RNY NNN Se =e ee ee =
BNRRERBRBBRBSeSeWTATDESHES
In the above-entitled action, Plaintiff Russell Brimer and Defendant Spectrum Brands,
Inc. have agreed to the terms of the mutually executed settlement memorialized in the [Proposed]
Consent Judgment (“Consent Judgment”), attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Kimberly
Gates in Support of Motion to Approve Proposition 65 Settlement and Consent Judgment lodged
herewith, and plaintiff has moved this Court for an Order approving the settlement.
After consideration of the papers submitted and the arguments presented, the Court finds
that the settlement agreement set forth in the Consent Judgment meets the criteria established by
California Health & Safety Code § 25249.7((4), in that:
1. The injunctive relief required by the Consent Judgment complies with Proposition
65; .
2. The reimbursement of fees and costs provided by the Consent Judgment is
reasonable under California law; and
3. The civil penalty amount to be paid pursuant to the Consent Judgment is
reasonable.
Accordingly, the Motion for Approval of the Proposition 65 Settlement is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 7 [i ha ZN _
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Hon . HAROLD KAHN
‘{EROPOSED) ORDER APPROVING PROP. 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENT
-te
Document Filed Date
July 19, 2017
Case Filing Date
June 13, 2016
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
MUA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jul-19-2017 9:52 am Case Number: CGC-16-552530 Filing Date: Jul-19-2017 9:52 Filed by: JOSE RIOS-MERIDA Image: 05950844 ORDER RUSSELL BRIMER VS. SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC. ET AL 001005950844 Instructions: : Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.uo em NY DH FF YW NY aaa eo IAD A BBN SB S 19 Brian C. Johnson, State Bar No. 235965 Kimberly Gates, State Bar No. 282369 THE CHANLER GROUP 2560 Ninth Street Parker Plaza, Suite 214 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 848-8880 Facsimile: (510) 848-8118 brian@chanler.com kimberly@chanler.com Attorneys for Plaintiff RUSSELL BRIMER FI D [ei JUL 1 9 2017 BY; Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION RUSSELL BRIMER, Plaintiff, v. SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC.; et al., Defendants. Case No. CGC-16-552530 WK [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENT Date: July 19, 2017 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 302 Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn Reservation No. 05240719-11 {PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROP. 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENTCoO ND Hh BF YB NY yw NR RNY NNN Se =e ee ee = BNRRERBRBBRBSeSeWTATDESHES In the above-entitled action, Plaintiff Russell Brimer and Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. have agreed to the terms of the mutually executed settlement memorialized in the [Proposed] Consent Judgment (“Consent Judgment”), attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Kimberly Gates in Support of Motion to Approve Proposition 65 Settlement and Consent Judgment lodged herewith, and plaintiff has moved this Court for an Order approving the settlement. After consideration of the papers submitted and the arguments presented, the Court finds that the settlement agreement set forth in the Consent Judgment meets the criteria established by California Health & Safety Code § 25249.7((4), in that: 1. The injunctive relief required by the Consent Judgment complies with Proposition 65; . 2. The reimbursement of fees and costs provided by the Consent Judgment is reasonable under California law; and 3. The civil penalty amount to be paid pursuant to the Consent Judgment is reasonable. Accordingly, the Motion for Approval of the Proposition 65 Settlement is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 7 [i ha ZN _ JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Hon . HAROLD KAHN ‘{EROPOSED) ORDER APPROVING PROP. 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENT -te