Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Sep-21-2012 3:29 pm
Case Number: CGC-11-516586
Filing Date: Sep-21-2012 3:29
Filed by: WESLEY G. RAMIREZ
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03774436
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER/NOTICE OF RULING FILED
ANTHONY E HELD VS. TWO'S COMPANY, INC. et al
001003774436
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
ifoOo NIN Dw
10
ul
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
Josh Voorhees, State Bar No. 241436
Rachel S. Doughty, State Bar No. 255904
THE CHANLER GROUP et
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 214 ¥ th, %D
Berkeley, CA 94710 sypetgt Seaae bare
Telephone: (510) 848-8880 Gounly
Facsimile: (510) 848-8118
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ANTHONY E. HELD, PhD., P.E.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
ANTHONY E. HELD, Ph.D., P.E., Case No. CGC-11-516586
Plaintiff, NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
APPROVING PROPOSITION 65
v. SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO TERMS OF
TWO’S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 through PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT
150, inclusive, AND CONSENT JUDGMENT
Defendants.
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER AND JUDGMENTSo ome DH BF HN
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on September 11, 2012, the Court entered an Order
Approving Proposition 65 Settlement. A true and correct copy of this Order is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN THAT on September 11, 2012, the Court entered a Judgment
Pursuant to Terms of Proposition 65 Settlement and Consent Judgment. A true and correct copy of
this Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 14, 2012 THE CHANLER GROUP
By: Lebel, Aft,
Rachel S. Doughty
Attgrneys for Plaintiff
ANTHONY E. HELD, mu P.E.
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER AND JUDGMENTom YN AH BF WN HY
NY N NY NY YN N NY HY He HB eB - oe = —
eS IA DAA KK HNH Ff FSF Ce DA BABAR BRAS
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
Telephone: (510) 848-8880
Facsimile: (510) 848-8118
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.E.
ENDORSED
FILED
San Francisco County Superior Court
SEP 11 2012
CLERK OF THE COURT
By.___GINAGONZALES
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P-E.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TWO’S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1-150,
inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. CGC-11-516586
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING
PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT A®®p-
NSENT SU
Date: September 11, 2012
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 302
Hon. Harold E. Kahn
ORDER APPROVING PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENToe ND HW FB WN
NY NN N NN N KY NY Be Be Be Be ew ewe we ew eR
oN DH FF BN = SO we AI AA RB YW NH BF S
Plaintiff Anthony E. Held, Ph.D., P.E. and defendant Two’s Company, Inc. have agreed
through their respective counsel that judgment be entered in this Proposition 65 action pursuant
to the terms of the Consent Judgment executed by the parties and attached to the supporting
Declaration of Rachel S. Doughty as Exhibit A. 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 Health and Safety Code section 25249.7, in
that:
1. any injunctive relief required by the Consent Judgment complies with
Proposition 65;
2. any reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Consent
Judgment is reasonable under California law; and
3. based on the criteria set forth in Health & Safety Code section 25249.7,
subdivision (b)(2), any civil penalty required by the Consent Judgment is
reasonable.
Accordingly, the Motion for Approval of the Proposition 65 Settlement is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SEP 11 2012 HAROLD KAHN
Dated:
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
ORDER APPROVING PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENTEXJosh 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
Telephone: (510) 848-8880
Facsimile: (510) 848-8118
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.E.
. ENDORSED
D
San Francisco County Superior Court
SEP 11 2012
CLERK OF THE COURT
BY: GINA GONZALES.
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.E.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TWO’S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1-150,
inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. CGC-11-516586
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT PURSUANT
TO TERMS OF PROPOSITION 65
SETTLEMENT AND [PROPOSED]
CONSENT JUDGMENT
Date: September 11, 2012
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 302
Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO TERMS OF PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENTCem nN DW BF Bw NY
YN NY NY NN N NN ee Be Se Be ee
eA QA Ak OoNH =F FSF Fe RAAaARaAaHRAS
Plaintiff Anthony E. Held, Ph.D., P.E. and Defendant Two’s Company, Inc., having
agreed through their respective counsel that Judgment be entered pursuant to the terms of
their settlement agreement in the form of a Consent Judgment, and following this Court’s
issuance of an Order approving this Proposition 65 settlement and Consent Judgment, on
September 11, 2012.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, pursuant to
Health and Safety Code section 25249.7, subdivision (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 1. By stipulation of the parties, the Court will retain
jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
AAROLD KAHN
Dated: SEP 11 2012
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
1
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO TERMS OF PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENTeExHiBit _|SC wm Wm
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
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,
v.
TWO’S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1-150,
inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. CGC-11-516586
[PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENT
(Cal. Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.6 et seq.)
[PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENTf BW NN
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Anthony E. Held, Ph.D., P.E. and Two’s Company, Inc.
This Consent Judgment is entered into by and between Anthony E. Held, PH.D., P.E.
(Dr. Held” or “Plaintiff’) and Two’s Company, Inc. (“Two’s” or “Defendant’”), with Held and
Two's collectively referred to as the “Parties.”
12 Plaintiff
Dr. Held is an individual residing in California who seeks to promote awareness of
exposures to toxic chemicals and improve human health by reducing or eliminating hazardous
substances contained in consumer products.
1.3 Defendant
Dr. Held alleges that Two’s employs ten or more persons and is a person in the course of
doing business for purposes of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986,
Health & Safety Code section 25249.6 et seg. (“Proposition 65”).
1.4 General Allegations
Dr. Held alleges that Two’s has manufactured, distributed, and/or offered for sale in
California cosmetic cases/bags containing di(2-ethylhexy!)phthalate (“DEHP”), luggage tags
containing DEHP, and luggage tags containing lead without the requisite Proposition 65
warnings. DEHP and lead are listed pursuant to Proposition 65 as chemicals known to the State
of California to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm.
1.5 Product Description
The products that are covered by this Consent Judgment are the Mindy Weiss Bridesmaid
Cosmetic Bag #8850 (#0 19218 08850 2) (“Mindy Weiss Bag”) distributed or sold by Two’s,
directly or through others, to consumers in California, and the Hide & Seek Luggage Tag,
#41169-20 (#0 19218 72065 5) (“Hide & Seek Tag”), distributed or sold by Two’s, directly or
through others, to consumers in California (“Products”).
1.6 Notices of Violation
On or about April 8, 2011, Dr. Held served Two’s and various public enforcement
agencies with a document entitled 60-Day Notice of Violation that provided Two’s and such
INSENT JUDGMENT
[PROPOSED] CO}Bw N =
wu
officials with notice that alleged that Two’s was in violation of Proposition 65 for failing to warn
its direct customers and end users that its cosmetic cases/bags exposed users in California to
DEHP. On or about September 19, 2011, Dr. Held served Two’s and various public enforcement
agencies with a Supplemental 60-Day Notice of Violation that provided Two’s and such officials
with notice that alleged that Two's was in violation of Proposition 65 for failing to warn its direct
customers and end users that its cosmetic cases/bags and luggage tags exposed users in California
to DEHP and that its luggage tags exposed users in California to lead. The April 8, 2011 60-Day
Notice of Violation and the September 19, 2011 Supplemental 60-Day Notice of violation will
hereinafter be referred to as the “Notices.”
1.7. Complaint
On December 14, 2011, Dr. Held filed a complaint in the Superior Court in and for the
County of San Francisco against Two’s and Does | through 150 (the “Complaint” or “Action”),
alleging violations of Proposition 65, based on the alleged exposures to DEHP contained in
certain cosmetic cases/bags and luggage tags sold by Two’s, and to lead in certain luggage tags
sold by Two's.
1.8 No Admission
Two’s denies the material factual and legal allegations contained in the Notices and
Complaint and maintains that all products that it has sold in California, including the Products,
have been, and are, in compliance with all laws. Nothing in this Consent Judgment shall be
construed as an admission by Two’s of any fact, finding, conclusion of law, issue of law, or
violation of law, nor shal! compliance with this Consent Judgment constitute or be construed as
an admission by Two's of any fact, finding, conclusion of law, issue of law, or violation of law.
such being specifically denied by Two's. However, this Section shall not diminish or otherwise
affect Two's obligations, responsibilities and duties under this Consent Judgment.
1.9 Consent to Jurisdiction
For purposes of this Consent Judgment only, the Parties stipulate that this Court has
jurisdiction over Two’s as to the allegations contained in the Complaint, that venue is proper in
the County of San Francisco, and that this Court has jurisdiction to enter and enforce the
{PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENTprovisions of this Consent Judgment, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
664.6, as a full and binding resolution of all claims that were or could have been raised in the
Complaint against Two’s based on the facts alleged therein and in the Notices.
1.10 Effective Date
For purposes of this Consent Judgment, the term “Effective Date” shall mean June 15,
2012.
2. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
As of the Effective Date, Two’s shall not ship, sell, distribute, or supply to an unaffiliated
third party the Mindy Weiss Bag or the Hide & Seek Tag if either Product will be sold or offered
for sale to California consumers unless each accessible component (i.e., any component that can
be touched, handled, or mouthed by a person during reasonably foreseeable use) of any such
Product contains DEHP in concentrations Icss than 1,000 parts per million when analyzed
pursuant to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sample preparation and test methodologies
3580A and 8270C (“DEHP Standard”), and contains no more than 50 parts per million of lead
when analyzed pursuant to EPA testing methodologies 3050B and/or 6010B, and 1.0 microgram
when analyzed pursuant to the NIOSH 9100 testing protocol.
3. MONETARY PAYMENTS
3A Civil Penalty Payment Pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 25249.7(b)
On or before the Effective Date, Two’s shal! make a payment of $3,500 to be apportioned
in accordance with Health & Safety Code section 25249.12, subdivisions (c)(1) and (d), with 75%
of these funds earmarked for the State of California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (“OEHHA”) and the remaining 25% of these penalty monies earmarked for Dr. Held.
This penalty reflects a credit of $6,500 in light of Two’s injunctive commitments in Section 2.
3.2 Reimbursement of Plaintiff’s Fees and Costs
‘The Parties acknowledge that Dr. Held 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
this fee issue to be resolved after the material terms of the agreement had been settled. Two’s
then expressed a desire to resolve the fee and cost issue shortly after the other settlement terms
[PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENT.nN
had been finalized. The Parties then attempted to (and did) reach an accord on the compensation
due to Dr. Held and his counsel under general contract principles and the private attorney general
doctrine codified at California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, for all work performed in
this matter, except fees that may be incurred on appeal. Under these legal principles, Two's shall
pay the amount of $19,000 for fees and costs incurred investigating, litigating and enforcing this
matter, including the fees and costs incurred (and yet to be incurred) negotiating, drafting, and
obtaining the Court’s approval of this Consent Judgment in the public interest.
3.3. Payment Procedures
3.3.1. Funds Held In Trust: All payments required by Sections 3.1 and 3.2 shall
delivered on or before the Effective Date to either The Chanler Group or the attorney of record for
the Two’s, and shall be held in trust pending the Court’s approval of this Consent Judgment.
Payments delivered to The Chanler Group shall be made payable, as follows:
(a) One check made payable to “The Chanler Group in Trust for
OEHHA” in the amount of $2,625;
(b) One check made payable to “The Chanler Group in Trust for Held”
in the amount of $875; and
(c) One check made payable to “The Chanler Group in Trust” in the
amount of $19,000.
Payments delivered to Dongell Lawrence Finney LLP shall be made payable, as
follows:
(a) One check made payable to “Dongell Lawrence Finney LLP in Trust
for OEHHA” in the amount of $2,625;
(b) One check made payable to “Dongell Lawrence Finney LLP in Trust
for Held” in the amount of $875; and
(c) One check made payable to “Dongell Lawrence Finney LLP in Trust
for (he Chanler Group” in the amount of $19,000.
If Two’s elects to deliver payments to its attomey of record, the attorney of record shall
confirm, in writing within five days of deposit, that the funds have been deposited in a trust
{PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENTfw VN
account.
Within two days of the date of the hearing on which the Court approves the Consent
Judgment, the payments being held in trust by the attorney of record for Two’s shall be delivered
to The Chanler Group in three separate checks payable, as follows:
(a) One check made payable to “The Chanler Group in Trust for
OEHHA” in the amount of $2,625;
(b) One check to “The Chanler Group in Trust for Held” in the amount
of $875; and
{c) One check to “The Chanler Group” in the amount of $19,000.
3.3.2. Issuance of 1099 Forms. After the Consent Judgment has been approved
and the settlement funds have been transmitted to plaintiff's counsel, Two’s shall issue three
separate 1099 forms, as follows:
(a) The first 1099 shall be issued to the Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment, P.O. Box 4010, Sacramento, CA 95814 (EIN:
68-0284486) in the amount of $2,625;
(b) The second 1099 shall be issued to Dr. Held in the amount of $875,
whose address and tax identification number shall be furnished
upon request; and
(c) The third 1099 shall be issued to The Chanter Group (EIN: 94-
3171522) in the amount of $19,000.
3.3.3 All payments transmitted to the Chanler Group shall be delivered to the
following address:
The Chanler Group
Attn: Proposition 65 Controller
2560 Ninth Street
Parker Plaza, Suite 214
Berkeley, CA 94710
[PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENTao 0D me YD HW B® WH
4. CLAIMS COVERED AND RELEASED
41 Plaintiff's Release of Proposition 65 Claims
Dr. Held acting on his own behalf and in the public interest releases Two’s from all claims
for violations of Proposition 65 up through the Effective Date based on exposure to DEHP from
the Mindy Weiss Bag and DEHP and lead from the Hide & Seek Tag. Compliance with the terms
of this Consent Judgment constitutes compliance with Proposition 65 with respect to exposures to
DEHP and/or lead from the respective Products.
4.2 Defendant’s Release of Plaintiff
Two’s on behalf of itself, its past and current agents, representatives, attorneys,
successors, and/or assignees, hereby waives any and all claims against Dr. Held, his attorneys and
other representatives, for any and all actions taken or statements made (or those that could have
been taken or made) by Dr. Held and his attorneys and other representatives, whether in the
course of investigating claims or otherwise seeking to enforce Proposition 65 against it in this
matter with respect to the Products.
5. COURT APPROVAL
This Consent Judgment is not effective until it is approved and entered by the Court and
shall be null and void if, for any reason, it is not approved and entered by the Court within one
year after it has been fully executed by the Parties, in which event any monies that have been
provided to Dr. Held or his counsel pursuant to Sections 3 above shal! be refunded within fifteen
(15) days after receiving written notice from Two’s that the one-year period has expired.
6. SEVERABILITY
If, subsequent to the execution of this Consent Judgment, any of the provisions of this
Consent Judgment are held by a court to be unenforceable, the validity of the enforceable
provisions remaining shall not be adversely affected.
7. GOVERNING LAW
The terms of this Consent Judgment shall be governed by the laws of the State of
California and apply within the State of California.
[PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENTwe
8. NOTICES
Unless specified herein, all correspondence and notices required to be provided pursuant
to this Consent Judgment shall be in writing and sent by (i) personal delivery, (ii) first-class,
registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. or (iii) overnight couricr on any party by the
other party at the following addresses:
For Two’s:
Courtney Ross-Tait, Esq.
Dongell Lawrence Finney LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, 45th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3609
For Dr. Held:
Proposition 65 Coordinator
The Chanler Group
2560 Ninth Street
Parker Plaza, Suite 214
Berkeley, CA 94710
Any party, from time to time, may specify in writing to the other party a change of address to
which all notices and other communications shall be sent.
9. COUNTERPARTS; FACSIMILE SIGNATURES
This Consent Judgment may be executed in counterparts and by facsimile or .pdf
signature, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall
constitute one and the same document.
10. POST EXECUTION ACTIVITIES
Dr. Held agrees to comply with the reporting form requirements referenced in Health &
Safety Code section 25249.7, subdivision (f). In addition, the Parties acknowledge that, pursuant
to Health & Safety Code section 25249.7, a noticed motion is required to obtain judicial approval
of this Consent Judgment. In furtherance of obtaining such approval, Dr. Held and Two’s and
their respective counse! agree to mutually employ their best efforts to support the entry of this
agreement as a Consent Judgment and obtain approval of the Consent Judgment by the Court ina
timely manner. For purposes of this section, best efforts shall include, at a minimum, cooperating
on the drafting and filing of any papers in support of the required motion for judicial approval.
[PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENTwm
ft. MODIFICATION
This Consent Judgment may be modified only: (1) by written agreement of the Parties
and upon entry of a modified consent judgment by the Court thereon: or (2) upon a successful
motion of any party and entry of a modified consent judgment by the Court.
12, AUTHORIZATION
The undersigned are authorized to execute this Consent Judgment and have read.
understood, and agree to all of the terms and conditions of this Consent Judgment.
AGREED TO: AGREED TO:
)
: Z hil’, Paty» /ceckuge
ANTHONY E. go Zz PE joes COMPANY. INC,
to Marieat
HER
Date: 06/12/2012 Date:_6 ft whe
PROP SEE CONST NTT HOME
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Sep-21-2012 3:29 pm Case Number: CGC-11-516586 Filing Date: Sep-21-2012 3:29 Filed by: WESLEY G. RAMIREZ Juke Box: 001 Image: 03774436 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER/NOTICE OF RULING FILED ANTHONY E HELD VS. TWO'S COMPANY, INC. et al 001003774436 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. ifoOo NIN Dw 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Josh Voorhees, State Bar No. 241436 Rachel S. Doughty, State Bar No. 255904 THE CHANLER GROUP et 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 214 ¥ th, %D Berkeley, CA 94710 sypetgt Seaae bare Telephone: (510) 848-8880 Gounly Facsimile: (510) 848-8118 Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTHONY E. HELD, PhD., P.E. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION ANTHONY E. HELD, Ph.D., P.E., Case No. CGC-11-516586 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER APPROVING PROPOSITION 65 v. SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO TERMS OF TWO’S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 through PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT 150, inclusive, AND CONSENT JUDGMENT Defendants. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER AND JUDGMENTSo ome DH BF HN TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on September 11, 2012, the Court entered an Order Approving Proposition 65 Settlement. A true and correct copy of this Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN THAT on September 11, 2012, the Court entered a Judgment Pursuant to Terms of Proposition 65 Settlement and Consent Judgment. A true and correct copy of this Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 14, 2012 THE CHANLER GROUP By: Lebel, Aft, Rachel S. Doughty Attgrneys for Plaintiff ANTHONY E. HELD, mu P.E. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER AND JUDGMENTom YN AH BF WN HY NY N NY NY YN N NY HY He HB eB - oe = — eS IA DAA KK HNH Ff FSF Ce DA BABAR BRAS 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 Telephone: (510) 848-8880 Facsimile: (510) 848-8118 Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.E. ENDORSED FILED San Francisco County Superior Court SEP 11 2012 CLERK OF THE COURT By.___GINAGONZALES Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P-E., Plaintiff, v. TWO’S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1-150, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CGC-11-516586 [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT A®®p- NSENT SU Date: September 11, 2012 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 302 Hon. Harold E. Kahn ORDER APPROVING PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENToe ND HW FB WN NY NN N NN N KY NY Be Be Be Be ew ewe we ew eR oN DH FF BN = SO we AI AA RB YW NH BF S Plaintiff Anthony E. Held, Ph.D., P.E. and defendant Two’s Company, Inc. have agreed through their respective counsel that judgment be entered in this Proposition 65 action pursuant to the terms of the Consent Judgment executed by the parties and attached to the supporting Declaration of Rachel S. Doughty as Exhibit A. 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 Health and Safety Code section 25249.7, in that: 1. any injunctive relief required by the Consent Judgment complies with Proposition 65; 2. any reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Consent Judgment is reasonable under California law; and 3. based on the criteria set forth in Health & Safety Code section 25249.7, subdivision (b)(2), any civil penalty required by the Consent Judgment is reasonable. Accordingly, the Motion for Approval of the Proposition 65 Settlement is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. SEP 11 2012 HAROLD KAHN Dated: JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ORDER APPROVING PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENTEXJosh 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 Telephone: (510) 848-8880 Facsimile: (510) 848-8118 Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.E. . ENDORSED D San Francisco County Superior Court SEP 11 2012 CLERK OF THE COURT BY: GINA GONZALES. Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.E., Plaintiff, v. TWO’S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1-150, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CGC-11-516586 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO TERMS OF PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND [PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENT Date: September 11, 2012 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 302 Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO TERMS OF PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENTCem nN DW BF Bw NY YN NY NY NN N NN ee Be Se Be ee eA QA Ak OoNH =F FSF Fe RAAaARaAaHRAS Plaintiff Anthony E. Held, Ph.D., P.E. and Defendant Two’s Company, Inc., having agreed through their respective counsel that Judgment be entered pursuant to the terms of their settlement agreement in the form of a Consent Judgment, and following this Court’s issuance of an Order approving this Proposition 65 settlement and Consent Judgment, on September 11, 2012. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 25249.7, subdivision (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 1. By stipulation of the parties, the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. IT IS SO ORDERED. AAROLD KAHN Dated: SEP 11 2012 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 1 JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO TERMS OF PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENTeExHiBit _|SC wm Wm 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 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, v. TWO’S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1-150, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CGC-11-516586 [PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENT (Cal. Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.6 et seq.) [PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENTf BW NN 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Anthony E. Held, Ph.D., P.E. and Two’s Company, Inc. This Consent Judgment is entered into by and between Anthony E. Held, PH.D., P.E. (Dr. Held” or “Plaintiff’) and Two’s Company, Inc. (“Two’s” or “Defendant’”), with Held and Two's collectively referred to as the “Parties.” 12 Plaintiff Dr. Held is an individual residing in California who seeks to promote awareness of exposures to toxic chemicals and improve human health by reducing or eliminating hazardous substances contained in consumer products. 1.3 Defendant Dr. Held alleges that Two’s employs ten or more persons and is a person in the course of doing business for purposes of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health & Safety Code section 25249.6 et seg. (“Proposition 65”). 1.4 General Allegations Dr. Held alleges that Two’s has manufactured, distributed, and/or offered for sale in California cosmetic cases/bags containing di(2-ethylhexy!)phthalate (“DEHP”), luggage tags containing DEHP, and luggage tags containing lead without the requisite Proposition 65 warnings. DEHP and lead are listed pursuant to Proposition 65 as chemicals known to the State of California to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm. 1.5 Product Description The products that are covered by this Consent Judgment are the Mindy Weiss Bridesmaid Cosmetic Bag #8850 (#0 19218 08850 2) (“Mindy Weiss Bag”) distributed or sold by Two’s, directly or through others, to consumers in California, and the Hide & Seek Luggage Tag, #41169-20 (#0 19218 72065 5) (“Hide & Seek Tag”), distributed or sold by Two’s, directly or through others, to consumers in California (“Products”). 1.6 Notices of Violation On or about April 8, 2011, Dr. Held served Two’s and various public enforcement agencies with a document entitled 60-Day Notice of Violation that provided Two’s and such INSENT JUDGMENT [PROPOSED] CO}Bw N = wu officials with notice that alleged that Two’s was in violation of Proposition 65 for failing to warn its direct customers and end users that its cosmetic cases/bags exposed users in California to DEHP. On or about September 19, 2011, Dr. Held served Two’s and various public enforcement agencies with a Supplemental 60-Day Notice of Violation that provided Two’s and such officials with notice that alleged that Two's was in violation of Proposition 65 for failing to warn its direct customers and end users that its cosmetic cases/bags and luggage tags exposed users in California to DEHP and that its luggage tags exposed users in California to lead. The April 8, 2011 60-Day Notice of Violation and the September 19, 2011 Supplemental 60-Day Notice of violation will hereinafter be referred to as the “Notices.” 1.7. Complaint On December 14, 2011, Dr. Held filed a complaint in the Superior Court in and for the County of San Francisco against Two’s and Does | through 150 (the “Complaint” or “Action”), alleging violations of Proposition 65, based on the alleged exposures to DEHP contained in certain cosmetic cases/bags and luggage tags sold by Two’s, and to lead in certain luggage tags sold by Two's. 1.8 No Admission Two’s denies the material factual and legal allegations contained in the Notices and Complaint and maintains that all products that it has sold in California, including the Products, have been, and are, in compliance with all laws. Nothing in this Consent Judgment shall be construed as an admission by Two’s of any fact, finding, conclusion of law, issue of law, or violation of law, nor shal! compliance with this Consent Judgment constitute or be construed as an admission by Two's of any fact, finding, conclusion of law, issue of law, or violation of law. such being specifically denied by Two's. However, this Section shall not diminish or otherwise affect Two's obligations, responsibilities and duties under this Consent Judgment. 1.9 Consent to Jurisdiction For purposes of this Consent Judgment only, the Parties stipulate that this Court has jurisdiction over Two’s as to the allegations contained in the Complaint, that venue is proper in the County of San Francisco, and that this Court has jurisdiction to enter and enforce the {PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENTprovisions of this Consent Judgment, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, as a full and binding resolution of all claims that were or could have been raised in the Complaint against Two’s based on the facts alleged therein and in the Notices. 1.10 Effective Date For purposes of this Consent Judgment, the term “Effective Date” shall mean June 15, 2012. 2. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF As of the Effective Date, Two’s shall not ship, sell, distribute, or supply to an unaffiliated third party the Mindy Weiss Bag or the Hide & Seek Tag if either Product will be sold or offered for sale to California consumers unless each accessible component (i.e., any component that can be touched, handled, or mouthed by a person during reasonably foreseeable use) of any such Product contains DEHP in concentrations Icss than 1,000 parts per million when analyzed pursuant to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sample preparation and test methodologies 3580A and 8270C (“DEHP Standard”), and contains no more than 50 parts per million of lead when analyzed pursuant to EPA testing methodologies 3050B and/or 6010B, and 1.0 microgram when analyzed pursuant to the NIOSH 9100 testing protocol. 3. MONETARY PAYMENTS 3A Civil Penalty Payment Pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 25249.7(b) On or before the Effective Date, Two’s shal! make a payment of $3,500 to be apportioned in accordance with Health & Safety Code section 25249.12, subdivisions (c)(1) and (d), with 75% of these funds earmarked for the State of California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) and the remaining 25% of these penalty monies earmarked for Dr. Held. This penalty reflects a credit of $6,500 in light of Two’s injunctive commitments in Section 2. 3.2 Reimbursement of Plaintiff’s Fees and Costs ‘The Parties acknowledge that Dr. Held 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 this fee issue to be resolved after the material terms of the agreement had been settled. Two’s then expressed a desire to resolve the fee and cost issue shortly after the other settlement terms [PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENT.nN had been finalized. The Parties then attempted to (and did) reach an accord on the compensation due to Dr. Held and his counsel under general contract principles and the private attorney general doctrine codified at California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, for all work performed in this matter, except fees that may be incurred on appeal. Under these legal principles, Two's shall pay the amount of $19,000 for fees and costs incurred investigating, litigating and enforcing this matter, including the fees and costs incurred (and yet to be incurred) negotiating, drafting, and obtaining the Court’s approval of this Consent Judgment in the public interest. 3.3. Payment Procedures 3.3.1. Funds Held In Trust: All payments required by Sections 3.1 and 3.2 shall delivered on or before the Effective Date to either The Chanler Group or the attorney of record for the Two’s, and shall be held in trust pending the Court’s approval of this Consent Judgment. Payments delivered to The Chanler Group shall be made payable, as follows: (a) One check made payable to “The Chanler Group in Trust for OEHHA” in the amount of $2,625; (b) One check made payable to “The Chanler Group in Trust for Held” in the amount of $875; and (c) One check made payable to “The Chanler Group in Trust” in the amount of $19,000. Payments delivered to Dongell Lawrence Finney LLP shall be made payable, as follows: (a) One check made payable to “Dongell Lawrence Finney LLP in Trust for OEHHA” in the amount of $2,625; (b) One check made payable to “Dongell Lawrence Finney LLP in Trust for Held” in the amount of $875; and (c) One check made payable to “Dongell Lawrence Finney LLP in Trust for (he Chanler Group” in the amount of $19,000. If Two’s elects to deliver payments to its attomey of record, the attorney of record shall confirm, in writing within five days of deposit, that the funds have been deposited in a trust {PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENTfw VN account. Within two days of the date of the hearing on which the Court approves the Consent Judgment, the payments being held in trust by the attorney of record for Two’s shall be delivered to The Chanler Group in three separate checks payable, as follows: (a) One check made payable to “The Chanler Group in Trust for OEHHA” in the amount of $2,625; (b) One check to “The Chanler Group in Trust for Held” in the amount of $875; and {c) One check to “The Chanler Group” in the amount of $19,000. 3.3.2. Issuance of 1099 Forms. After the Consent Judgment has been approved and the settlement funds have been transmitted to plaintiff's counsel, Two’s shall issue three separate 1099 forms, as follows: (a) The first 1099 shall be issued to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, P.O. Box 4010, Sacramento, CA 95814 (EIN: 68-0284486) in the amount of $2,625; (b) The second 1099 shall be issued to Dr. Held in the amount of $875, whose address and tax identification number shall be furnished upon request; and (c) The third 1099 shall be issued to The Chanter Group (EIN: 94- 3171522) in the amount of $19,000. 3.3.3 All payments transmitted to the Chanler Group shall be delivered to the following address: The Chanler Group Attn: Proposition 65 Controller 2560 Ninth Street Parker Plaza, Suite 214 Berkeley, CA 94710 [PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENTao 0D me YD HW B® WH 4. CLAIMS COVERED AND RELEASED 41 Plaintiff's Release of Proposition 65 Claims Dr. Held acting on his own behalf and in the public interest releases Two’s from all claims for violations of Proposition 65 up through the Effective Date based on exposure to DEHP from the Mindy Weiss Bag and DEHP and lead from the Hide & Seek Tag. Compliance with the terms of this Consent Judgment constitutes compliance with Proposition 65 with respect to exposures to DEHP and/or lead from the respective Products. 4.2 Defendant’s Release of Plaintiff Two’s on behalf of itself, its past and current agents, representatives, attorneys, successors, and/or assignees, hereby waives any and all claims against Dr. Held, his attorneys and other representatives, for any and all actions taken or statements made (or those that could have been taken or made) by Dr. Held and his attorneys and other representatives, whether in the course of investigating claims or otherwise seeking to enforce Proposition 65 against it in this matter with respect to the Products. 5. COURT APPROVAL This Consent Judgment is not effective until it is approved and entered by the Court and shall be null and void if, for any reason, it is not approved and entered by the Court within one year after it has been fully executed by the Parties, in which event any monies that have been provided to Dr. Held or his counsel pursuant to Sections 3 above shal! be refunded within fifteen (15) days after receiving written notice from Two’s that the one-year period has expired. 6. SEVERABILITY If, subsequent to the execution of this Consent Judgment, any of the provisions of this Consent Judgment are held by a court to be unenforceable, the validity of the enforceable provisions remaining shall not be adversely affected. 7. GOVERNING LAW The terms of this Consent Judgment shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and apply within the State of California. [PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENTwe 8. NOTICES Unless specified herein, all correspondence and notices required to be provided pursuant to this Consent Judgment shall be in writing and sent by (i) personal delivery, (ii) first-class, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. or (iii) overnight couricr on any party by the other party at the following addresses: For Two’s: Courtney Ross-Tait, Esq. Dongell Lawrence Finney LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, 45th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3609 For Dr. Held: Proposition 65 Coordinator The Chanler Group 2560 Ninth Street Parker Plaza, Suite 214 Berkeley, CA 94710 Any party, from time to time, may specify in writing to the other party a change of address to which all notices and other communications shall be sent. 9. COUNTERPARTS; FACSIMILE SIGNATURES This Consent Judgment may be executed in counterparts and by facsimile or .pdf signature, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same document. 10. POST EXECUTION ACTIVITIES Dr. Held agrees to comply with the reporting form requirements referenced in Health & Safety Code section 25249.7, subdivision (f). In addition, the Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 25249.7, a noticed motion is required to obtain judicial approval of this Consent Judgment. In furtherance of obtaining such approval, Dr. Held and Two’s and their respective counse! agree to mutually employ their best efforts to support the entry of this agreement as a Consent Judgment and obtain approval of the Consent Judgment by the Court ina timely manner. For purposes of this section, best efforts shall include, at a minimum, cooperating on the drafting and filing of any papers in support of the required motion for judicial approval. [PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENTwm ft. MODIFICATION This Consent Judgment may be modified only: (1) by written agreement of the Parties and upon entry of a modified consent judgment by the Court thereon: or (2) upon a successful motion of any party and entry of a modified consent judgment by the Court. 12, AUTHORIZATION The undersigned are authorized to execute this Consent Judgment and have read. understood, and agree to all of the terms and conditions of this Consent Judgment. AGREED TO: AGREED TO: ) : Z hil’, Paty» /ceckuge ANTHONY E. go Zz PE joes COMPANY. INC, to Marieat HER Date: 06/12/2012 Date:_6 ft whe PROP SEE CONST NTT HOME