Preview
Troy C. Bailey, State Bar No. 277424
Josh Voorhees, State Bar No. 241436
VOORHEES & BAILEY, LLP
990 Amarillo Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone: (650) 815-6022
Facsimile: (650) 618-1606
troy @,voorheesbailey.com
joshia@voorheesba
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DENNIS JOHNSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
DENNIS JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
HOME ESSENTIALS & BEYOND, INC.;
KIRKLAND’S, INC.; and DOES 1-150,
inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. _
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Health & Safety Code § 25249.5 et seq.)
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFNATURE OF THE ACTION
1, This Complaint is a representative action brought by Plaintiff DENNIS JOHNSON in
the public interest of the citizens of the State of California to enforce the People’s right to be
informed of the health hazards caused by exposures to lead. a toxic chemical found on ceramic
Spoon Rest with decorations sold by defendants in California.
2. By this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy defendants’ continuing failure to warn
individuals not covered by California's Occupational Safety Health Act, Labor Code § 6300 et seq.,
who purchase, use or handle defendants’ products, about the risks of exposure to lead present in the
decorations affixed to the surface of ceramic spoon rests that defendants manufacture, distribute and
offer for sale or use throughout the State of California. Individuals not covered by California's
Occupational Safety Health Act, Labor Code § 6300 et seq., who purchase, use or handle
defendants’ products, are referred to hereinafter as “consumers.”
3. Detectable levels of lead are found on the surface of ceramic spoon rests with
decorations that defendants manufacture, distribute, and offer for sale to consumers throughout the
State of California.
4. Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, codified at
Health and Safety Code § 25249.6 ef seg. (“Proposition 65”), “[n]o person in the course of doing
business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to
cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such
individual... .” Health & Safety Code § 25249.6.
5. Pursuant to Proposition 65, on February 27, 1987, California listed lead as a chemical
known to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm. Lead became subject to the “clear and
reasonable warning” requirements of the act one year later, on February 27, 1988. Cal. Code Regs.
tit. 27, § 27001(c); Health & Safety Code §§ 25249.8 & 25249.10(b).
6. Defendants manufacture, distribute, import, sell, and/or offer for sale without health
hazard warnings in California. ceramic spoon rests with decorations containing lead including, but
not limited to the, “Molly Hatch Spoon Rest”, UPC/SKU 26-198733”. All such ceramic spoon rests
with exterior decorations are referred to collectively hereinafter as “PRODUCTS.”
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFa nw Nw
co 00
7. Defendants’ failure to warn consumers in the State of California of the health hazards
associated with exposures to lead in conjunction with defendants’ sales of the PRODUCTS are
violations of Proposition 65, and subject defendants, and each of them, to enjoinment of such
conduct as well as civil penalties for each violation. Health & Safety Code § 25249.7(a) & (b)(1).
8. For defendants’ violations of Proposition 65, Plaintiff seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief to compel defendants to provide consumers of the PRODUCTS with the
required warning regarding the health hazards associated with exposures to lead. Health & Safety
Code § 25249.7(a).
9. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 25249.7(b), Plaintiff also seeks civil penalties
against defendants for their violations of Proposition 65.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff DENNIS JOHNSON is a citizen of the State of California who is dedicated to
protecting the health of California citizens through the elimination or reduction of toxic exposures
from consumer products; and he brings this action in the public interest pursuant to Health and
Safety Code § 25249.7(d).
11. Defendant HOME ESSENTIALS & BEYOND, INC. (“HOME ESSENTIALS”) is a
person in the course of doing business within the meaning of Health and Safety Code §§ 25249.6
and 25249.11.
12. HOME ESSENTIALS manufactures, imports, distributes, sells, and/or offers the
PRODUCTS for sale or use in the State of California, or implies by its conduct that it manufactures,
imports, distributes, sells. and/or offers the PRODUCTS for sale or use in the State of California.
13, Defendant KIRKLAND’S, INC. (*KIRKLAND’S”) is a person in the course of doing
business within the meaning of Health and Safety Code §§ 25249.6 and 25249.11.
14. KIRKLAND’S imports, distributes, sells, and/or offers the PRODUCTS for sale or use
in the State of California, or implies by its conduct that it imports, distributes, sells, and/or offers the
PRODUCTS for sale or use in the State of California.
ta
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF15. Defendants DOES 1-50 (*MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS”) are each a person in
the course of doing business within the meaning of Health and Safety Code §§ 25249.6 and
25249.11.
16. MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS, and each of them, research. test, design,
assemble, fabricate, and manufacture, or each implies by its conduct that it researches, tests, designs,
assembles, fabricates, and manufactures one or more of the PRODUCTS offered for sale or use in
California.
17. Defendants DOES 51-100 (“DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS”) are each a person in
the course of doing business within the meaning of Health and Safety Code §§ 25249.6 and
25249.11.
18. DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS, and each of them, distribute, exchange, transfer,
process, and transport one or more of the PRODUCTS to individuals, businesses, or retailers for sale
or use in the State of California, or each implies by its conduct that it distributes, exchanges,
transfers, processes, and transports one or more of the PRODUCTS to individuals, businesses, or
retailers for sale or use in the State of California.
19. Defendants DOES 101-150 (“RETAILER DEFENDANTS") are each a person in the
course of doing business within the meaning of Health and Safety Code §§ 25249.6 and 25249.11.
20, RETAILER DEFENDANTS, and each of them, offer the PRODUCTS for sale to
individuals in the State of California.
21. At this time, the true names of defendants DOES 1 through 150, inclusive, are
unknown to Plaintiff, who, therefore, sues said defendants by their fictitious names pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of
the fictitiously named defendants is responsible for the acts and occurrences alleged herein. When
ascertained, their true names shall be reflected in an amended complaint.
22. HOME ESSENTIALS, KIRKLAND’S, MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS,
DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS, and RETAILER DEFENDANTS shall hereinafter, where
appropriate, be referred to collectively as the “DEFENDANTS.”
we
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFVENUE AND JURISDICTION
23. Venue is proper in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure §§ 393, 395, and 395.5, because this Court is a court of competent jurisdiction,
because Plaintiff seeks civil penalties against DEFENDANTS, because one or more instances of
wrongful conduct occurred, and continue to occur, in this county. and/or because DEFENDANTS
conducted, and continue to conduct, business in Santa Clara county with respect to the PRODUCTS.
24. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California
Constitution Article VI, section 10, which grants the Superior Court “original jurisdiction in all
causes except those given by statute to other trial courts.” The statute under which this action is
brought does not specify any other basis of subject matter jurisdiction.
25. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over DEFENDANTS based on
Plaintiff's information and good faith belief that each of the DEFENDANTS are a person, firm,
corporation or association that is a citizen of the State of California, has sufficient minimum contacts
in the State of California, and/or otherwise purposefully avails itself of the California market.
DEFENDANTS’ purposeful availment renders the exercise of personal jurisdiction by California
courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Proposition 65 - Against All Defendants)
26. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, Paragraphs
1 through 25, inclusive.
27. Inenacting Proposition 65, in the preamble to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986, the People of California expressly declared their right “[t]o be informed
about exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.”
28. — Proposition 65 states, “[nJo person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and
intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive
toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual...” Health & Safety
Code § 25249.6.
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF29. On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff served a sixty-day notice of violation, together with
the accompanying certificate of merit, on HOME ESSENTIALS, KIRKLAND’S, the California
Attorney General, and all other requisite public enforcers alleging that, as a result of
DEFENDANTS!’ sales of the PRODUCTS, consumers in the State of California are being exposed
to lead resulting from their reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS. without the consumers
first receiving a “clear and reasonable warning” regarding the harms associated with exposures to
lead as required by Proposition 65.
30. DEFENDANTS manufacture, import, distribute, sell, and offer the PRODUCTS for
sale or use in violation of Health and Safety Code § 25249.6, and DEFENDANTS’ violations have
continued beyond their receipt of Plaintiff's sixty-day notice of violation. As such, DEFENDANTS*
violations are ongoing and continuous and, unless enjoined, will continue in the future.
31. After receiving Plaintiff's sixty-day notice of violation, no public enforcement agency
has commenced and diligently prosecuted a cause of action against DEFENDANTS under
Proposition 65 to enforce the alleged violations that are the subject of Plaintiff's notice of violation.
32. The PRODUCTS that DEFENDANTS manufacture, import, distribute. sell, and offer
for sale or use in California cause exposures to lead as a result of the reasonably foreseeable use of
the PRODUCTS. Such exposures caused by DEFENDANTS and endured by consumers in
California are not exempt from the “clear and reasonable” warning requirements of Proposition 65.
33. DEFENDANTS know or should know that the PRODUCTS they manufacture, import,
distribute, sell, and offer for sale in California contain lead.
34. Lead is present on the PRODUCTS in such a way as to expose consumers through
dermal contact and/or ingestion during reasonably foreseeable use.
35. The normal and reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS has caused, and
continues to cause, consumer exposures to lead, as defined by title 27 of the California Code of
Regulations, section 25602(b).
36. |. DEFENDANTS know that the normal and reasonably foreseeable use of the
PRODUCTS expose individuals to lead through dermal contact and/or ingestion.
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFom ID
37. DEFENDANTS intend that exposures to lead from the reasonably foreseeable use of
the PRODUCTS will occur by their deliberate, non-accidental participation in the manufacture,
importation, distribution, sale, and offering of the PRODUCTS for sale or use to consumers in
California.
38. DEFENDANTS failed to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” to those consumers
in California who have been, or will be. exposed to lead through dermal contact and/or ingestion
resulting from their use of the PRODUCTS.
39. Contrary to the express policy and statutory prohibition of Proposition 65 enacted
directly by California voters, consumers exposed to lead through dermal contact and/or ingestion as
a result of their use of the PRODUCTS that DEFENDANTS sell without a “clear and reasonable”
health hazard warning, have suffered. and continue to suffer. irreparable harm for which they have
no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law.
40. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 25249.7(b), as a consequence of the above-
described acts, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are liable for a maximum civil penalty of $2,500
per day for each violation.
41. Asa consequence of the above-described acts, Health and Safety Code § 25249.7(a)
also specifically authorizes the Court to grant injunctive relief against DEFENDANTS.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against DEFENDANTS as follows:
1. That the Court, pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 25249,7(b), assess civil penalties
against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the amount of $2,500 per day for each violation:
2. That the Court, pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 25249.7(a), preliminarily and
permanently enjoin DEFENDANTS from manufacturing, distributing, or offering the PRODUCTS
for sale or use in California without a “clear and reasonable warning” in accordance with title 27 of
the California Code of Regulations, section 25601 ef seq., regarding the harms associated with
exposures to lead:
HHI
/Tt
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF3. That the Court, Pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 25249.7(a). issue preliminary
and permanent injunctions mandating that DEFENDANTS recall all PRODUCTS currently in the
chain of commerce in California without a “clear and reasonable warning” as defined by California
Code of Regulations title 27, section 25601 et seq.:
4, That the Court grant Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and
5. That the Court grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Dated: September 14, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
VOORHEES & BAILEY, LLP
ley
eys for Plaintiff
DENNIS JOHNSON
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Preview
Troy C. Bailey, State Bar No. 277424 Josh Voorhees, State Bar No. 241436 VOORHEES & BAILEY, LLP 990 Amarillo Ave Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 815-6022 Facsimile: (650) 618-1606 troy @,voorheesbailey.com joshia@voorheesba Attorneys for Plaintiff DENNIS JOHNSON SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION DENNIS JOHNSON, Plaintiff, Vv. HOME ESSENTIALS & BEYOND, INC.; KIRKLAND’S, INC.; and DOES 1-150, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. _ COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Health & Safety Code § 25249.5 et seq.) COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFNATURE OF THE ACTION 1, This Complaint is a representative action brought by Plaintiff DENNIS JOHNSON in the public interest of the citizens of the State of California to enforce the People’s right to be informed of the health hazards caused by exposures to lead. a toxic chemical found on ceramic Spoon Rest with decorations sold by defendants in California. 2. By this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy defendants’ continuing failure to warn individuals not covered by California's Occupational Safety Health Act, Labor Code § 6300 et seq., who purchase, use or handle defendants’ products, about the risks of exposure to lead present in the decorations affixed to the surface of ceramic spoon rests that defendants manufacture, distribute and offer for sale or use throughout the State of California. Individuals not covered by California's Occupational Safety Health Act, Labor Code § 6300 et seq., who purchase, use or handle defendants’ products, are referred to hereinafter as “consumers.” 3. Detectable levels of lead are found on the surface of ceramic spoon rests with decorations that defendants manufacture, distribute, and offer for sale to consumers throughout the State of California. 4. Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, codified at Health and Safety Code § 25249.6 ef seg. (“Proposition 65”), “[n]o person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual... .” Health & Safety Code § 25249.6. 5. Pursuant to Proposition 65, on February 27, 1987, California listed lead as a chemical known to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm. Lead became subject to the “clear and reasonable warning” requirements of the act one year later, on February 27, 1988. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 27, § 27001(c); Health & Safety Code §§ 25249.8 & 25249.10(b). 6. Defendants manufacture, distribute, import, sell, and/or offer for sale without health hazard warnings in California. ceramic spoon rests with decorations containing lead including, but not limited to the, “Molly Hatch Spoon Rest”, UPC/SKU 26-198733”. All such ceramic spoon rests with exterior decorations are referred to collectively hereinafter as “PRODUCTS.” COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFa nw Nw co 00 7. Defendants’ failure to warn consumers in the State of California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead in conjunction with defendants’ sales of the PRODUCTS are violations of Proposition 65, and subject defendants, and each of them, to enjoinment of such conduct as well as civil penalties for each violation. Health & Safety Code § 25249.7(a) & (b)(1). 8. For defendants’ violations of Proposition 65, Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to compel defendants to provide consumers of the PRODUCTS with the required warning regarding the health hazards associated with exposures to lead. Health & Safety Code § 25249.7(a). 9. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 25249.7(b), Plaintiff also seeks civil penalties against defendants for their violations of Proposition 65. PARTIES 10. Plaintiff DENNIS JOHNSON is a citizen of the State of California who is dedicated to protecting the health of California citizens through the elimination or reduction of toxic exposures from consumer products; and he brings this action in the public interest pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 25249.7(d). 11. Defendant HOME ESSENTIALS & BEYOND, INC. (“HOME ESSENTIALS”) is a person in the course of doing business within the meaning of Health and Safety Code §§ 25249.6 and 25249.11. 12. HOME ESSENTIALS manufactures, imports, distributes, sells, and/or offers the PRODUCTS for sale or use in the State of California, or implies by its conduct that it manufactures, imports, distributes, sells. and/or offers the PRODUCTS for sale or use in the State of California. 13, Defendant KIRKLAND’S, INC. (*KIRKLAND’S”) is a person in the course of doing business within the meaning of Health and Safety Code §§ 25249.6 and 25249.11. 14. KIRKLAND’S imports, distributes, sells, and/or offers the PRODUCTS for sale or use in the State of California, or implies by its conduct that it imports, distributes, sells, and/or offers the PRODUCTS for sale or use in the State of California. ta COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF15. Defendants DOES 1-50 (*MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS”) are each a person in the course of doing business within the meaning of Health and Safety Code §§ 25249.6 and 25249.11. 16. MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS, and each of them, research. test, design, assemble, fabricate, and manufacture, or each implies by its conduct that it researches, tests, designs, assembles, fabricates, and manufactures one or more of the PRODUCTS offered for sale or use in California. 17. Defendants DOES 51-100 (“DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS”) are each a person in the course of doing business within the meaning of Health and Safety Code §§ 25249.6 and 25249.11. 18. DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS, and each of them, distribute, exchange, transfer, process, and transport one or more of the PRODUCTS to individuals, businesses, or retailers for sale or use in the State of California, or each implies by its conduct that it distributes, exchanges, transfers, processes, and transports one or more of the PRODUCTS to individuals, businesses, or retailers for sale or use in the State of California. 19. Defendants DOES 101-150 (“RETAILER DEFENDANTS") are each a person in the course of doing business within the meaning of Health and Safety Code §§ 25249.6 and 25249.11. 20, RETAILER DEFENDANTS, and each of them, offer the PRODUCTS for sale to individuals in the State of California. 21. At this time, the true names of defendants DOES 1 through 150, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who, therefore, sues said defendants by their fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible for the acts and occurrences alleged herein. When ascertained, their true names shall be reflected in an amended complaint. 22. HOME ESSENTIALS, KIRKLAND’S, MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS, DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS, and RETAILER DEFENDANTS shall hereinafter, where appropriate, be referred to collectively as the “DEFENDANTS.” we COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFVENUE AND JURISDICTION 23. Venue is proper in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 393, 395, and 395.5, because this Court is a court of competent jurisdiction, because Plaintiff seeks civil penalties against DEFENDANTS, because one or more instances of wrongful conduct occurred, and continue to occur, in this county. and/or because DEFENDANTS conducted, and continue to conduct, business in Santa Clara county with respect to the PRODUCTS. 24. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Constitution Article VI, section 10, which grants the Superior Court “original jurisdiction in all causes except those given by statute to other trial courts.” The statute under which this action is brought does not specify any other basis of subject matter jurisdiction. 25. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over DEFENDANTS based on Plaintiff's information and good faith belief that each of the DEFENDANTS are a person, firm, corporation or association that is a citizen of the State of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in the State of California, and/or otherwise purposefully avails itself of the California market. DEFENDANTS’ purposeful availment renders the exercise of personal jurisdiction by California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Proposition 65 - Against All Defendants) 26. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, Paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive. 27. Inenacting Proposition 65, in the preamble to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, the People of California expressly declared their right “[t]o be informed about exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.” 28. — Proposition 65 states, “[nJo person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual...” Health & Safety Code § 25249.6. COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF29. On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff served a sixty-day notice of violation, together with the accompanying certificate of merit, on HOME ESSENTIALS, KIRKLAND’S, the California Attorney General, and all other requisite public enforcers alleging that, as a result of DEFENDANTS!’ sales of the PRODUCTS, consumers in the State of California are being exposed to lead resulting from their reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS. without the consumers first receiving a “clear and reasonable warning” regarding the harms associated with exposures to lead as required by Proposition 65. 30. DEFENDANTS manufacture, import, distribute, sell, and offer the PRODUCTS for sale or use in violation of Health and Safety Code § 25249.6, and DEFENDANTS’ violations have continued beyond their receipt of Plaintiff's sixty-day notice of violation. As such, DEFENDANTS* violations are ongoing and continuous and, unless enjoined, will continue in the future. 31. After receiving Plaintiff's sixty-day notice of violation, no public enforcement agency has commenced and diligently prosecuted a cause of action against DEFENDANTS under Proposition 65 to enforce the alleged violations that are the subject of Plaintiff's notice of violation. 32. The PRODUCTS that DEFENDANTS manufacture, import, distribute. sell, and offer for sale or use in California cause exposures to lead as a result of the reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS. Such exposures caused by DEFENDANTS and endured by consumers in California are not exempt from the “clear and reasonable” warning requirements of Proposition 65. 33. DEFENDANTS know or should know that the PRODUCTS they manufacture, import, distribute, sell, and offer for sale in California contain lead. 34. Lead is present on the PRODUCTS in such a way as to expose consumers through dermal contact and/or ingestion during reasonably foreseeable use. 35. The normal and reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS has caused, and continues to cause, consumer exposures to lead, as defined by title 27 of the California Code of Regulations, section 25602(b). 36. |. DEFENDANTS know that the normal and reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS expose individuals to lead through dermal contact and/or ingestion. COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFom ID 37. DEFENDANTS intend that exposures to lead from the reasonably foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS will occur by their deliberate, non-accidental participation in the manufacture, importation, distribution, sale, and offering of the PRODUCTS for sale or use to consumers in California. 38. DEFENDANTS failed to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” to those consumers in California who have been, or will be. exposed to lead through dermal contact and/or ingestion resulting from their use of the PRODUCTS. 39. Contrary to the express policy and statutory prohibition of Proposition 65 enacted directly by California voters, consumers exposed to lead through dermal contact and/or ingestion as a result of their use of the PRODUCTS that DEFENDANTS sell without a “clear and reasonable” health hazard warning, have suffered. and continue to suffer. irreparable harm for which they have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law. 40. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 25249.7(b), as a consequence of the above- described acts, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are liable for a maximum civil penalty of $2,500 per day for each violation. 41. Asa consequence of the above-described acts, Health and Safety Code § 25249.7(a) also specifically authorizes the Court to grant injunctive relief against DEFENDANTS. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against DEFENDANTS as follows: 1. That the Court, pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 25249,7(b), assess civil penalties against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the amount of $2,500 per day for each violation: 2. That the Court, pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 25249.7(a), preliminarily and permanently enjoin DEFENDANTS from manufacturing, distributing, or offering the PRODUCTS for sale or use in California without a “clear and reasonable warning” in accordance with title 27 of the California Code of Regulations, section 25601 ef seq., regarding the harms associated with exposures to lead: HHI /Tt COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF3. That the Court, Pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 25249.7(a). issue preliminary and permanent injunctions mandating that DEFENDANTS recall all PRODUCTS currently in the chain of commerce in California without a “clear and reasonable warning” as defined by California Code of Regulations title 27, section 25601 et seq.: 4, That the Court grant Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and 5. That the Court grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Dated: September 14, 2020 Respectfully submitted, VOORHEES & BAILEY, LLP ley eys for Plaintiff DENNIS JOHNSON COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF