AUG 1 2 2002 -

© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
WILLIAM VERICK, SBN 140972
Klamath EnvironmentalLaw Center
424 First Street
Eureki CA 95501
FILED
San Francisco County S~perbrUJ.
AUG
-
1 2 2002
P.O. Box 12157
Berkeley, CA 94712-3157
Teleohone: (510) 647-1900
'
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
MATEEL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
(Unlimited Jurisdiction)
MATEEL ENVIRONMENTAL
KJSTICE FOUNDATION,
CASE NO.
411380
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT FOR INJLJNCTIVE RELIEF
AND C I M , PENALTIES
v.
3RANDRICH CORPORATION, TARGET
30RPORATION. and DOES 1 through
- 100
nclusive.
Defendants.
TOXIC TORTENVIRONMENTAL
MATEEL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
This Complaint seeks civil penalties and an injunction to remedy the continuing
Failure of defendants GFL~TDRICHCORPORATION, TARGBT CORPORATION and DOES 1
though 100 inclusive (hereinafter "Defendants"), to give clear and reasonable warnings to those
residents of California., who handle and use decorative string lights which are made of a PVC
:overed cord with lights strung along the cord, that handling and use of such products causes
:O:OMPLPD4T FOR INJUNCTION
NlCIVIL PENALTIES
.J
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
-
those residents to be exposed to lead and lead compounds, chemicals known to the State of
California to cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm Such products are referred
to variously as Christmas Lights, Holiday Lights, Icicle Lights, Halloween Lights, Mini-Lights,
and other terms, and are hereinafter referred to as "PVC Coated Decorative String Lights."
Defendants manufacture, distriiute andlor market PVC Coated Decorative String Lights. These
products cause exposures to lead and lead compounds, which are chemicals known to the State ol
California to cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm
2.
Defendants are businesses that manufacture, market, and/or diihiiute PVC
Coated Decorative String Lights. Defendants intend that residents of California handle and use
PVC Coated Decorative String Lights that Defendants manufacture, market, and/or distriite.
When these products are handled andused in their normally intended manner, they expose
people to lead and lead compounds. In spite of knowing that residents of California were and are
being exposed to these chemicals when they handle and use PVC Coated Decorative S e g
Lights, Defendants did not and do not provide clear and reasonable warning that these products
cause exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm
3.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 25249.7
to compel Defendants to bring their business practices into compliance with section 25249.5 3
I (I
by providing a clear and reasonable waming to each individual who in the futuremay be
I
exposed to the above mentioned toxic chemicals firom the use of Defendants' products. Plaintiff
)
also seeks injunctive relief pursuant to Business & Professions Code Sections 17203 and 17204,
1 which grant the Court the authority to enjoin any unlawful business practice constituting an act of
unfair competition
4.
In addition to injunctive relief, plaintiff seeks civil penalties to remedy the
defendants GRANDRICH CORPORATION and TARGET CORPORATION from continuing
to fail to provide clear and reasonable warnings to many individuals that they have been and
continue to be exposed to chemicals known to cause cancer, b i defects and other reproductive
harm
C O M P L r n KIRIMLTNCIION
AND CNIL PENALTIES
rn
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
PARTIES
1
2
5.
Plaintif MATEEL ENVIRONIvIENTALJUSTICE FOUNDATION ("Mateel")
is a non-profit foundation dedicated to, among other causes, the protection of the environment,
promotion of human health, enviromtal education, and c o n m r rights. Mateel is based in
Eureka, and is incorporated under the laws of the State of California Mateel is a "person"
pwsuant to Health & Safety Code Section 25118. Mateel brings this enforcement action in the
public interest pursuant to Health & Safety Code 525249.7(d) and Business & Professions Code
9 17204. Residents of California are regularly exposed to lead and lead compounds fiomPVC
Coated Decorative String Lights manufactured, distriiuted or marketed by Defendants without a
clear and reasonable Proposition 65 warning and in violation of the prohiiition against unlawful
business practices within the meaning of Business &Professions Code 917200.
6.
Defendants nre each a person within the meaning of Business & Professions Code
$17201 and a person doing bdmess within the meaning of Health & Safety Code Section
25249.11. Defendants are businesses that manufacture, distribute, andlor market PVC Coated
Decorative String Lights m California, including the City and County of SanFrancisco.
Manufacture, distribution andor marketing of these products m the City and County of San
Francisco causes people to be exposed to lead and lead compounds while they are physically
present in the City and County of San Francisco.
7.
Mateel is unaware of the true names or capacities of the Defendants sued herem
under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 100, inclusive. Defendants DOES 1 through 100
inclusive are therefore sued herein pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 9474. When Mateel learns
their identities, it will amend the complaint.
8.
Plaintiff brings this enforcement action against Defendants pwsuant to Health &
Safety Code Section 25249.7(d). Attached hereto and incorporated by reference is a copy of the
60-day Notice Letter, which Mateel sent to California's Attorney General. Substantially similar
letters were sent to every District Attorney m the state, and to the City Attorneys of every
Cnlifornia city with a population greater than 750,000. On those same dates, Mateel sent a
similar 60-Day Notice Letter to each defendant. Attached to the 60-Day Notice Letters sent to
COMPLAINT K)R INJUNCllON
AND CIVIL PENALTIES
3
I
1 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
© Prop
-
1 each defendant was a summary of Proposition 65 that was prepared by California's Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. In addition, each 60-Day Notice Letter plaintiff sent
was accompanied by a Certificate of Service attesting to the service of the 60-Day Notice Letter
on each entity which received it as well as a Certificate of Merit. Moreover, the 60 Day Notice
Letter sent to the Attorney General enclosed laboratory reports and the names of experts that
Mateel consulted and which fornxd the basis of the Certificate of Merit.
9.
Defendants are all businesses that employ ten or more people.
JURISDICTION
10.
The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Health & Safety
Code Section 25249.7, and Business &Professions Code Sections 17203 and 17204, which
allow enforcement in any court of competent jurisdiction. California Constitution Article VI,
Section 10 grants the Superior Court "originaljurisdiction in all causes except those given by
statute to other trial courts." Chapter 6.6 of the Health & Safety Code, and Division 7, part 2
(Sections 17200g seq,) of the Business &Professions Code, which contain the statutes under
which this action is brought, do not grant jurisdiction to any other trial court.
11.
This Court also has jurisdiction over Defendants because they are busmesses that
have sufficient minimum contacts m California and witbin the City and Comty of San Francisco.
Defendants intentionally availed themselves of the California and San Francisco County markets
for PVC Coated Decorative String Lights. It is thus consistent with traditionalnotionsof fair
play and substantialjustice for the San Francisco Superior Court to exercise jurisdiction over
them.
12.
Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants market their products in and
amund San Francisco and thus cause people to be exposed to lead and lead compounds while
those people are physically present in San Francisco. Liability for Plaintiffs causes of action, or
some parts thereof, has accordingly arisen in San Francisco during the times relevant to this
Complaint.
COMPLAIEPT POR WNNC!XON
AND CIVILPENALTIES
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of Proposition 65)
13.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference into this First Claim for Relief, as
if specifically set forth herein, paragraphs 1through 11, inclusive.
14.
The People of the State of Californiahave declared by referendum under
Proposition 65 (Califomia Health & Safety Code 5 25249.5 g & their right "[t]o be informed
about exposures to chemicals that cause cancer."
15.
To effectuate this goal, Section 25249.6 of the Health and Safety Code mandates
that persons who, in the course of doing business, knowingly and mtentionally expose my
mdividud to a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer or birth defects must
kst provide a clear and reasonable warning to such indi~dualprior to the exposure.
16.
Since at least August 12,1998, defendants hnve engaged m conduct which
violates Health and Safety Code Section 25249.6
This conduct includes knowingly and
mtentionally exposing to the above mentioned toxic chemicals, California residents who handle
md use PVC Coated Decorative String Lights. The nonnally intended use of PVC Coated
Decorative Shing Lights causes exposure to lead and lead compounds, which a e chemicals
mown to thr: State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm.
3efendants have not provided clear and reasonable warnings, within the meaniug of Health &
Safety Code Sections 25249.6 and 25249.11.
17.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendants knew that the PVC Coated
lecorative String Lights they manufactured, distributed or marketed were causing exposures to
ead and lend compounds. Defendants intended that residents of Californiahandle and use PVC
Zoated Decorative String Lights in such ways as would lead to significant exposures to these
hemicats.
18.
By the above described acts, Defendants, are liable and should be liable, pursuant
o Health & Safety Code 5 25249.7(b), for a civil penalty of $2,XlO.OO per day for each
odividual exposed to lead and lead compounds from the handling or use of Defendants' PVC
bated Decorative String Lights.
:OMPLAINTFOR INTUNCI1ON
iVIl CIVIL PENALTIES
J
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of Business & Professions Code $5 17200
19.
Plaintiff realleges and incolporates by reference into this Second Claimfor Relief,
as if specifically set forth herein, pnragraphs 1 through 17.
20.
Defendants, at all times relevant to this action, have knowingly and intentionally
exposed to lead and lead cornpounds residents of Cnlifornia who handle and use PVC Coated
1
I
Decorative String Lights. Defendants have not provided clear and reasonable warnings within
I the meaning of Health & Safety Code Sections 25249.6 and 25249.1 1 to these exposed
1
1
individuals.
21.
By intentionally causing such exposures without first providing clear and
, reasonable warnings, Defendants have violated hposition 65, Section 25249%
of the
! CaIifornia Health & Safety Code. These violations thus constitute unlawful business practices as
I defined by Business & Professions code Section 17200. By marketing PVC Coated Decorative
i
String Lights that cause exposures to lead, Defendants actions also constitute unfair competition
because such marketing practices are unfair and fraudulent in that members of the public may be
mislead to believe the lights do not cause an exposure to lead.
22.
An action for injunctive relief under the Unfair Competition Act is specifically
authorized herein pursuant to Business &Professions Code Ij 17203.
23.
Plaintiff, in bringing this action, acts within the public interest for the protection
of all citizens of the State of California in attempting to obtain injunctive relief for the purpose of
deterring rmd preventing Defendants from failing to warn about possible future exposures to the
above mentioned carcinogenic and teratogenic substances.
I1 I/ /I I1
N 11 /I 11
COMPLAINT HJR INJUNCTION
AND CIW.PENALTIBS
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as follows:
A.
Pursuant to the First Claim for Relief, that Defendants be assessed a civil penalty
m an amount equal to $2.500.00 per day per mdividual exposed, m violation of Section 25249.6
~fthe California Health & Safety Code, to lead and lead compounds as the result of Defendants'
manufacturing, distributing or marketing of PVC Coated Decorative String Lights.
8.
'
Pursuant to the Second Claim for Relief, that all Defendants be enjoined,
restrained, and ordered to comply with the pmvisions of Section 2 5 2 4 9 . 5 , of
~ the
~
2alifomia Health & Safety Code, and not commit any further unlawful or unfair business
~ractices;
C.
Pursuant to the Second Claim for Relief, that all defendants be required to not+
n otherwise inform aU persons who purchased any PVC Coated Decorative Sbing Lights over
be last four years that the PVC Coated Decorative String Lights cause an exposure to lead, a
:hemica1 known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects, that certain actions
:an be taken to miuimize that exposqe, and that they may return any such purchase for a full
efimd.
D.
Pursuant to the Second, Third, and Fourth Claims for Relief, that aU
IFFENDANTS be assessed reasonable attorney's fees, and for costs of suit actually incmed by
hintiff for the preparation and pursuit of this action, and
E.
For such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: August 12,2002
BY
#-L
avid H.'~illiams
Attorney for Plaintiff
Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation
IOMPLAE'IT POR IMUNCI'ION
mCNIL PENALTIES
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
-.,&W OFFICE OF DAVID H. 4~ L ~ M s
2070 ALLSTON WAY,
SUITE 300
BERWLEY, CALIFORNIA
94704
TELEPHONE (510) 647-1900
FAX (510) 647-1905
January 13,2002
BY MAIL
CRAIG C.THOMPSON
SUPERVISINGDEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAZ,
CAtIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
,
1300 'T'STREET
P.O. BOX 94255
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This officeand t h e ~ a t e e~nvirom&tal
l
Justice Foimdation ('Mateel") v e you notice
that since at least January 11,2001, the business listed on ExhibitA have been, are, will be, and
threaten to be in violation of Cal. Health and Safety Code 6 25249.6. Both this'office mid.MateeI
are private enforcers of Proposition 65, both may be contacted at the below listed address and
telephone number, and I am a fesponsible individual with both Mateel and this bffice. The above
referenced violations occur when'Califomiaresidentshandle and/or use Christuias lights, string .
lights, swag light;;, icicle lights and other.similar types of light sets that consist of a se&s of light
bulbs connected by a plastic coated
(collectively '%oliday lighis"'). Examples ofpaTticular
products manufactured andlor sold by the businesses in question are attached as Exhibit B. The
plastic coating on ihe wires of these holiday lights contains lead andlead compounds ("lead").
When people handle these wires, when they insfall them,. when they string them up on windows, .
Christmas trees, on their houses or in their gardens, or whmever they 'm the wires through their
hands, lead that is S a n d on the plastic'coating on thwe svires comes off on their hands. This lead
is then ingested andlor inhaled through hand-to-mouth, hand-to-food-to-mouth, aqd hand-tocigarette-to-mouth-to-lPgsSbehavior.This lead is also absorbed through the skin, enters the body
da cuts and abrasions, and through mucous membranes when people with lead on their hands
touch these mucous membranes. Holiday lighk sold by these businesses thus expose consumers
and workers to lead via the dermal, ingestion$wlation and subcutandousroutes. These
'businesses do not provide clear and reasonable.warnings to people who install or us&holiday
lights that these lights will expose them to chemicals !mown to cause cancer and birth defects.
These violations and threatened v~olationswill continue to occur everyday until these businesses
either provides clear and reasonable warnings, reformulate their lights so as not to contain lead,
or stop selling them. These exposures occur within the consumer, environmental. and
occuPkionalcontexts. ~ateefdoesnot, however, allege occupa&al exposures to li&b
manufactured outside of California, excepts as to the workplaces that these businesses maintain
in California. These violations occur in all of California's 58 counties and both on and off of
these businesses properties.
'
Cordially,
\
David H.Williams
A
h
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
KURT S.ADLER, INC.
I 107BROADWAY
NEWY0RK.W 10010
SAFEWAY INC.
5918 STONEIUDGE~V&.L ROADQ
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-33229 .
KINDWAN, 1. &SONS, INC.
ALBERTSON'S. INC.
2.50 PARKCENTER BLVD
BOISE, ID 83706
22 JACKSON ST
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19148-0000
BIG LOTS STORES, k.
300 PHILLIPI RD
COLUhfBUS, OH 43228
.
-RICH
CORPORATION
16215MARQUARDT AVE
CERRlTOS, CA 90703
PNS STORES. NC.
ROMAN, INC.
5-55 LAWRENCE AVE.
ROSELLB, IL 60172-1599
WEST COAST LIQUIDATORS. INC.
300 PHILLIPI RD '
FlTZAND FLOYD, INC.
501 E CORPORATE DR'
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS 75057
KEA US., MC.
496 WEST GERMANTOWNPIKE
PLYMOUTHMEETING, PA 19462
msc. mc.
501 E CORPORATE DR
L m m L E , -S
75057
IKEA U.S. WEST, INC
496 W GERMANTOWNPIKE
PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA 19462
rn
.
GENERAL PAR^
us.
INC.
496 W GERMANTORrNPlKE
PLYMOUTH MEETING, ~ ~ ' 1 9 4 6 2
BED BATH 4 BEYOND'NC.
650 LIBERTY AVENUE
UNION, NJ 07083
SMART INNOVATIONS. INC.
118l0MAYFlELDA~~ill01
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
.
- M. S.A. TRADING, INC.
PRESIDENT: MdRK KANE
5145DOUG&& FIRRD .
CALABASAS,
CA 91302
..
THE KROGER CO.
PRESIDENT: JOSEPH A ~ICHLER
1014VINEST
.
~- - - CINCINNATI, OH 45202-1100
INTER AMERICAN PRODUCTS, INC.
1014VlNEST
m ~ A T IOH, 45202-1 100
CALAFOODS, INC.
I 100 WEST ARTESIA BLVD
C O W O N , CA 90220
HOME DEPOT USA., INC.
2455 PACES FERRY ROAD
.
ATLANTA, GA 30339
TRADE ASSOCIATES GROUP, LTD.
1730 W WRIGHTWOOD
CHICAGO, ILL 60614.6143
GE WIRINGDEVICES 4 SPECIALTYPRODUCTS,:
INC.
POBOX2216
SCFENECTADY, NY 12301:2216
NEW ENGLAND P O T E R Y CO
1000 WAYASHINGTON ST
FOXBORO. MA 02035-1330
.
.
GKI DMSION OF NEW ENGLAND P o m y co
230 SPRWG ST N W
ATlANT.4. GA 30303
TARGEI' CORPORATION
.
1000 MCOLLET MALL m 9
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
-. -,
.
.
, 65 News. All-EXHIEITB
© Prop
Rights Reserved.
EXAMPLE HOLIDAY LIGHT
COMPANY
d
Santa'i World 50 Mini.ature Lights, Santa's
World 10 Light Set, 10 Old Fashioned
Streetlights UL1518, Cool.To The Touch
IdOutdoor C7 Style Light Set ULl3 10/GM, 3 5
.Light Set UL1507R
KURT S. ADLER, INC.
mriRMAN, I.& SONS, INC.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31G LOTS STORES, INC., PNS S T O W , Nc..
NEST COAST LIQUIDATORS, INC.
.
REA US., INC.,
Paulanne Industries 100 Qrange Bulbs Fright
Lites #DKOI-I 00/2SSB, Padanne Industries
Saata Trim Window-cicles 50 Lighti, Paulanne
Industriei Brite:Star Path-cicles; Santa Trim
Wiridow-Cicl'es 50 ~ u l t i ~ i g h,tPaulanne
s
IndustriesBrite Star path-tick.
..
.
25 Christmas Outdoor Lights SKU # 10942347,
100 MiniatureChristmasLights Super Bright
.
1tem#23010159~~,
100 Net Miniature Light
Set Model # TOL-lOOTJ2W, 50 &door b e a r
Lights Item # ES 60-230,100 Miniature
Christmas Lights Super Bright Item#TOL-'
10012WA, 300 Frosty Lights Llltpinated
Icicles HoJjdayZighting System
Model#CDF-150/3F, 100 Clear Fmsty Lights
Illuminated Icicles Item # TOL-IOOUZWA
.
..
IKEA U.S. WEST, INC..
.
JulW #I9972 Papa lantern shing lights
iCEA U.S. GENERAL PARTNER, INC.
ED
MART
& B-OND
WC.
300 Patio Adci-aSet #8844X, Foremost 450
Icicle Add-a-Set #$SO-150/35
'
Light Up America Red, white, and Blue Item
OVAT TINS, INC.,
t. S. A. TRADING, INC.
#TZ-17'
.
HE KROGER CO., CATA FOODS, INC.,
JTER AMERICAN PRODUCTS, INC.
-.
Holiday HOG
300 Hang Straight Icicle Light
Set-Clear,Holiday Home 16G 40 Frosted
White Round Light Set, Hotiday Home 100
.Hang Shaight Icicle ~ight.Set-~ulti,
Holiday
Home 100 Hang Straight Icicle Light Set
. .
' Blue, Holiday Rome 1 6 40~ rans spa rent
MultiColor Round Light Set
~~~p
DivE DEPOT U.S.A., INC.
-
UU~EASSOCIATES GROUP, LTD.
I
Home Accents 150 Multi-Function Christmas
Lights, Home Accents 35 G 20 Crystal Globe
Christmas Lights, ~k Indoor/Outdodr, Pro-Lide
68ft-150 Light Commercial Mmiature Set, ProLine 150 Net Light #45302
SPOU?I*~
~ights
-
~FEWAYINC.
.
100 IndoorfOutdoor Miniature Christmas
Lights.
-
1 ALBERTSON'S, NC.© Prop 65 News. All Rights 70Reserved.
pearl l i g d
I
I
#HSL-70P/2F(0.2),
Expressions100 mini lights red #4803, Foremost
100 Icicle add-a-set #RL-1002
. ..
_/
Bubble Lights item #I76494
ROMAN, INC.
GRANDRICH CORPORATION - .
.
Dorm RoomStringLights Geometric Cubes 12
lights, 12 ft wire
.
HTZ AM) FLOYD, IIK., FFSC, INC.
. .
Sil&stii 50 MiniatureLights For Indb&Outdoor
Use, 52 Series
GE WIRD~G DEVICES & SPECIALTY
PRODUCTS, INC.
.GE 5OLight Traditional Holiday Classics Set
#OLX6-5OCL , 100 Light String-A-Long
#26984,50 Light Traditional ~ o l i d a ~ . ~ i a sSet
sic .
. #27016, pro-~ine150 Net Light #453OZ, 100
~ i g h~~g-A-Long#%984,150
t
Light Bl& &
Whitekicle#45321
.
.
.NEW E N G L P~ O m Y CO.. GKI DMSION
OF NEW ENGLAND P O T E R Y CO
TARGET CORPORAI%JN
Bethlehem Lighting White Frost I00
Commercial Grade Tangle-Free Lights.
IndoorIOutdoor, Halloween Bubble Lights
#741760, C6 Eaceted ~ o l i d Lights
a ~ #722701
.
LINENS N TEINGS, LNT, INC
D&IU &om String LighOl Geometric Cubes 12 lights, 12 ft wire, Garden Icicle Light Set
'
.
.
100 D e c b d v c TmnkLighb
..
'
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
I, Anita Sarrett, declare:
.
.
If so called, I could and would testify as follows: I am over eighteen. My business address
is 2070 Mston Way, Suite 300, Berkeley, California, 94704. On January 15,2002. I caused the
attached 60-DAYNOTICE LETTER,oia letter identical in substance, to be served by U.S. Mail
on those ~ublicenforcement a~encieslisted on the attached SERVICE LIST: in addition on the
s&e dat; and by certified MAI caused the attached 6O&W NOTICE L
E and ~
PROPOSITION 65: A SUMMARY to b.e ient by Cert5edMail to the private business entities
also listed on the attached SERVICELIST: I deposited copies ofthese documents in envelopes,
postage pre-paid, with the U.S. Postal ~ & c e on 'the day on which the mail is collected. I declare
under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct and ,that this declarition was executed on January 15,2002, at Berkeley, California
-
'
-
...'
.
Anita Sarrett
.
..
This notice alleges the Golation of Proposition 65-withrespect to occupatiofial exporn&
by the California State Plan for Occupational Safety and [email protected] State Plan
incorporated the provisions of Proposition 65, as approvedby Federal OSHA on June 6,1997.
This aip&val specifically placed certain conditions on Proposition 65, including that it does not
apply to the coniluct of manufactures occurring outside the State of CBlifornia .The'apjroval
also provides that an employer may use the meins of compliances in the g e m hazaid
copmiunicatibn requirements to comply with Proposition 65. It also requires that supplemental
enforcement is subject to.The sup&sion of the California Occ@ational Sifety &d Health
Administration. Accordingly,'any settlement, civil complainf or substantive court orders in this
matter must be submitt@ to the Attomey General.
.
'
.
I, Fredric Evenson, hereby certify that with regard to the allegations & the attached 60Day Notice Letter, I have consulted with one or more persbns with relevant and appropriate
eQeri&ce or expertise who has re+iewed.facts, studies, or other data regarding the expbsure to
the listed che&cal that is the subject of the attached 60-Day Notice Letter (Pihich is not yet an
action and may never be an action) a d b a s e d on that information, I believe that thke is a
reasonable and meritorious case for anyone, including the Attomey General an'd .anyDistrict
Attomey or Ciiy Attorney, to bring an action based oa the violatiop no'ticed in the attached 60Day Notice Letter. Attached tithe copy of the 60-Day Notice Letter-sentto the CalifoIpia
.
Attomey General, is a copy of the laboratoryreport that reflects, in part, the abolie referenced.
coniultation. I swear under
of perjury thatthe foregoing is true and correct add that t& .
certification wa3 executed on January 15,2002 at Berkeley,.California
.
.
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
WILLIAM VERICK, CSB #I40972
KLAMATH ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
424 First Street
Eureka, CA 95501
(707) 268-8900
DAVID H. WILLIAMS, CSB #I44479
FREDRIC EVENSON, CSB #I98059
BRIAN ACREE, CSB #202505
2070 Allston Wa Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94%4
Telephone: (510 647-1900
Facs~rmle: (5ld)647-19~5
Attorneys for PlaintB
MATEEL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
FOUNDATION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Case No. 41 1380
MATEEL ENVIRONMENTAL
FOUNDATION,
Plaintiff,
CONSENT.JUDGMENT
'
VS.
GRANDRICH CORPORATION,
MRGET CORPORATION, and DOES 1
bough 100, inclusive,
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
On May 22,2001, MATEEL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
?OUNDATION ('~laintBh@ -acting
on behalf of itself and the general public, filed a
=omplaintfor civil penalties and injunctive relief (komplaint") in San Francisco County
hperior Court, Case No. 321544, against Defendant Target Corporation ( "Target"). The
:omplaint alleges, among other things, that Target violated provisions of the Safe
kinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and safety Code Sections
!5249.5, et seq. ("Proposition 65'7, and Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et
ieq. (the 'Vnfair Competition Act"), by knowingly and intentionally exposing persons to
~roductscontaining lead and/or lead compounds, which are chemicals known to the State
I
142275
CONSENT JUDGMENT
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm, without first
providing a clear and reasonable warning to such individuals. The Complaint was based
upon a 60-Day Notice letter, dated February 16,2001, sent by MEE to Target, the
California Attorney General, all District Attorneys, and all City Attorneys with population'
exceeding 750,000. A supplemental 60-Day Notice Letter, dated, January 13,2002, was
also sent to the same entities. A copy of the initial notice is attached to the complaint in
this action.
1.2
Within 75 days of the entry of this Consent Judgment and pursuant to the
provision of section 8 below, MEJF agrees to serve 60-Day Notice Letters upon all Public
Enforcers and upon all of the businesses identified by Target pursuant to section 8.2 and
8.3 below ("Opt-in Defendants"), making essentially the same allegations as those in the
60-Day Notice Letters sent to Target. Further, upon the entry of a Stipulation of Enby of
Judgment and Order, as set forth in section 8.4 below, this Consent Judgment and the
Complaint shall be deemed amended to name each Opt-in Defendant as a DOE defendant,
and include all of the Covered Products and chemicals identified in the each of the 60-Day
Notie Letters sent to the Opt-in Defendants. For purposes of this Consent Judgment, the
3pt-in Defendants and Target shall be referred to collectively as "Settling Defendants."
1.3
Each Settling Defendant is a business that employs ten or more persons and
;ells within the State of California string light products. Plaintiff MEJF alleges that these
roducts are manufactured with PVC covered wire or cable that contains lead and/or lead
:ompounds. Lead and lead compounds are chemicals known to the State of California to
:ause cancer, and lead is a chemical bown to the State of California to cause reproductive
oxicity pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 25249.9. Products containing lead
md/or lead compounds that are sold or distributed in the State of California are, under
pecified circumstances, subject to the Proposition 65 warning requirement set forth in
lealth and Safety Code section 25249.6. Plaintiff M E E alleges that holiday sbing light
~roductsmanufactured, distributed, sold and/or marketed by each Settling Defendant for
Ise in California and containing lead andlor lead compounds require a warning under
2
CONSENT JUDGMENT
42175
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
Proposition 65. For purposes of this Consent Judgment, the term "Covered Products" shal
I
be defined as decorative holiday lighting products that incorporate or contain PVC coirerec
wire or cable, with lights located along the wire or cable, to the extent such string light
products are distributed and sold within the State of California, and that are sold by each
Settling Defendant or any other entity acting on its behalf.
I
1.4
Target represents and warrants that following receipt of plaintiffs 60-Day
Notice Letter, Target identified the manufacturers and distributors (Vendors) of Covered
Products and informed those Vendors of Plaintiff's allegations, and reminded those
Vendors of their obligation under the terms and conditions of their contract with Target:
that required Covered Products to comply with all applicable laws, including Proposition
65. In October 2001 Target informed its then-current Vendors of Private Label Covered
Products that had not previously reached an agreement with plaintiff regarding Covered
Products that Target would not purchase for sale in California any Private Label Covered
Products that contained PVC with a lead content by weight of 0.03% (300 parts per million
"300 ppm") or more, unless the packaging of such Private Label Covered Products
contained a Proposition 65 warning (for purposes of this Consent Judgment, "Private
Label" Covered Products are Covered Products sold under a brand owned by Target
Corporation or any of its subsidiaries or operating divisions. Target was informed by all
such vendors that they intended to comply with this condition. Target agrees that after the
effective date of this Consent Judgment it will not purchase any Private Label Covered
Products from a vendor unless the vendor has agreed that the Private Label Covered
Product it sells Target have either been reformulated as per this paragraph or bear a
Proposition 65 warning as per paragraph 7.2.
1.5
For purposes of this Consent Judgment, each Settling Defendant stipulates
.hat this Court has jurisdiction over the allegations of violations contained in the
Zomplaint and personal jurisdiction over the Settling Defendant, as to the acts alleged in
he Complaint, that venue is proper in the County of San Francisco and that this Court has
urisdiction to enter this Consent Judgment as a full settlement and resolution of the
3
42275
CONSENT JUDGMENT
V 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
© Prop
-
1 allegations contained in the Complaint and of all claims w c h were or could have been
2 raised by any person or entity based in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, on the facts
3 alleged therein or arising thereeom or related thereto.
1.6
4
This Consent Judgment resolves claims that are denied and disputed. The
5 parties enter into this Consent Judgment pursuant to a full and final settlement of any and
I all claims between the parties for the purpose of avoiding prolonged litigation. This
Consent Judgment shall not constitute an admission with respect to any material allegation
of the Complaint, each and every allegation of which each Settling Defendant denies, nor
may this Consent Judgment or compliance with it be used as evidence of any wrongdoing,
misconduct, culpability or liability on the part of any Settling Defendant.
2.
SETTLEMENT PAYMENT
2.1 In settlement of all of the claims referred to in this Consent Judgment against
Target, within 10 days of the entry of the Consent Judgment, Target shall pay $10,000 to
the Klamath Environmental Law Center ("KELC") to cover plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
investigation and testing costs.
2.2
Additionally, within 10 days of the entry of the Consent Judgment, Target
shall $10,000 to the Environmental Protection and Information Center ("EPIC") in lieu of
civil penalties for past violations. The payment will be spent on informing the public
regarding toxic exposures or on activities and programs to reduce exposures. The moneys
shall not be spent on funding attorneys' fees for Proposition 65 litigation. EPIC is a
Califomianon-profit environmental organization.
2.3
Opt-in Defendant Settlement Payments shall be governed by the provisions
of Paragraph 8.4, below.
2.4
Target acknowledges that the in lieu of civil penalty payments required
under Paragraph 2.2 are not in any manner a credit toward any personal restitution claim
by absent third parties.
2.5
The payments identified in Paragraph 2.2 shall be made in lieu of civil
penalties pursuant to Health & Safety Code Sections 25249.7@).
4
CONSENT IUDGMENT
MU75
-
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
-
ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT UPON NOTICED MOTION & SERVICE
3.
'
ON THE kTTORT3EY GENERAL
3.1
The parties jointly request that the Court promptly approve this settlement
and enter this Consent Judgment. MEJF shall file a noticed motion requesting court
approval of this settlement and entry of the Consent Judgment. The parties believe that the
settlement is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, and that its entry is consistent with
Proposition 65 and in the public interest. Upon entry of the Consent Judgment, Settling
Defendants and MEJF waive their respective rights to a hearing or trial on the allegations
of the Complaint.
3.2
MEJF shall serve a copy of this Consent Judgment and the Notice of Motion
for approval of the settlement on the Attorney General so that the Attorney General may
review this Consent Judgment prior to or at the same time as its submittal to the Court for
approval.
3.3
It is expressly understood and agreed by the Parties hereto that the rights and
~bligationscontained in this Consent Judgment are expressly conditioned on the
nonspposition by the California Attorney General's Office to the provisions of this
Consent Judgment affecting persons that are not parties to this Consent Judgment. Those
iubstantive provisions include Paragraphs 2 (Settlement Payment), 4 (Claims Covered and
ielease), 5 (Enforcement of Judgment), and 7 (Injunctive Relief) of this Consent
ludgment. Should the Attorney General object to the terms of one or more of these
novisions of this Consent Judgment within 30 days of the filing of the motion for
tpproval, the parties shall negotiate in good faith to attempt to modify the Consent
hdgment in a manner that resolves the objection of the Attorney General and shall
:ooperate in performing any actions reasonabiy necessary to satisfy the Attorney General's
:oncerns and £halize the Consent Judgment If the Parties cannot agree on appropriate
nodifications within 15 days of receiving any objection from the Attorney General to
'magraphs 2,4,5, or 7, this Consent Judgment shall, at any Party's option, be deemed null
md void as to that Party and shall not bind that Party and shall not be construed as an
5
CONSENT ILR)GMENT
42215
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
u
4
admission or waiver of any claim or defenseand cannot be used for any purpose.
4.
MATTERS COVERED BY THIS CONSENT JUDGMENT
4.1
For purposes of Paragraph 4 of this Consent Judgment, the term "Releasee"
;hall include each Settling Defendant and its past, present and future parents, divisions,
;ubdivisions, brands, subsidiaries and affiliates and the predecessors, successors and
issigns of any of them, as well as their past, present and future officers, directors,
mployees, agents, attorneys, representatives, shareholders and assigns.
4.2.
This Consent Judgment is a final and binding resolution between the Plaintiff
YIEJF, acting on behalf of itself and, as to those matters described in Plaintiffs February
.6,2001, and January 13,2002 60 Day Notice Letters, and any Notice Letter sent pursuant
o Paragraphs 1.2,8,2, and 8.3 herein, acting on behalf of the general public and in the
ublic interest, and each Releasee, of: (i) any violation of Proposition 65 or the Unfair
:ompetition Act (including but not limited to the claims made in the complaint) with
spect to the Covered Products, or (ii) any other statutory or common law claim, to the
ullest extent that any of the foregoing described in (i) or (ii) were or could have been
sserted hy plaintiff or any personor entity in the public interest or on behalf of the general
ublic against each Releasee based upon, arising out of or relating to the Releasee's
ompliance with Proposition 65, or regulations promulgated thereunder, and the Unfair
lompetition Act, with respect to the Covered Products, or (ii) as to alleged exposures to
:overedProducts, any other claim based in whole or part on the facts alleged in the
!omplaintwhether based on actions committed by Releasee, or by any other Defendant or
ltity within the chain of distribution, including, but not limited to, suppliers, wholesale or
etail sellers or dist&utors and any other person in the course of doing business. As to
lleged exposures to lead and lead compounds &om the Covered Products, compliance
dth the terms of this Consent Judgment resolves any issue, now and in the future,
oncerning compliance by each Releasee and its customers, suppliers, distributors,
~holesalers,retailers or any other person in the course of doing business who may use,
6
CONSENT JUDGMENT
2275
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
'-r
'd
maintain, distribute, market or sen Covered Products, with the requirements of Proposition
55 and the Unfair Competition Act.
4.3
As to alleged expdsures to lead and lead compounds from the Covered
'roducts, Plaintiff MEW, and KLAMATH ENVJRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
'XELC") by and on behalf of themselves, and their respective agents, successors and
~ssigns,waive all rights to institute any form of legal action, and release all claims against
:ach Releasee, and its customers, suppliers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, licensees,
kr any other person in the course of doing business, and the successors and assigns of any
~fthem, who may use, maintain, distribute or sell the Covered Products, whether under
'roposition 65 or the Unfair Competition Act or otherwise, arising out of or resulting from
lr related directly or indirectly to, in whole or in part, the claims identified in Plaintiffs 6C
)ay Notice Letters, including but not limited to any exposure to, or failure to warn with
:spect to, the Covered Products (referred to collectively in this paragraph as the
Claims"). In furtherance of the foregoing, PlaintEMEJF and KELC hereby waive any
md all nghts and benefits which they now have, or in the future may have, conferred upon
hem with respect to the Covered Products by virtue of the provisions of Section 1542 of
he California Civil Code, which provides as follows:
"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH
THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS
FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF
KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS
SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR
laintiff MEJF understands and acknowledges that the significance and consequence of
lis waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542 is that even if Plaintiff MEJF suffers
iture damages arising out of or resulting ffom, or related directly or indirectly to, in whole
r in part, the Covered Products, MEJF will not be able to make any claim for those
images against each Releasee and its customers, supphers, distributors, wholesalers,
:tailers, licensees, or any other person in the course of doing business, and the successors
I
CONSENT 3UDGMENT
075
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
-
I
U
1 and assigns of any of them, who may use, maintain, distribute or sell the Covered
2 Products. Furthermore, MEJF acknowledges that it intends these consequences for any
3 such claims which may exist as of the date of this release but which MEJF does not know
4 exists, and which, if known, would materially affect its decision to enter into this Consent
5 Judgment, regardless of whether the lack of knowledge is the result of ignorance,
6 oversight, error, negligence, or any other cause.
7
8 5.
ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
9
5.1.
The terms of this Consent Judgment shall be enforced exclusively by the
10 parties hereto. Upon compliance with section 5.2, the parties may, by noticed motion or
11 order to show cause before the Superior Court of San Francisco County, giving the notice
12 required by law, enforce the terms and conditions contained herein. In any proceeding
13 brought by either party to enforce this Consent Judgment, such party may seek whatever
14 fines, costs, penalties or remedies as may be provided by law for any violation of the
15 Consent Judgment.
5.2.
16
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Judgment, before bringink
17 any further action against Target regarding Covered Products, Plaintiff must comply with
18 the provisions of this section. In the event Plaintiff identifies Covered Products for which
19 warnings are required under Paragraph 7 and such warnings are not actually being given as
20 required ("Default"), Plaintiff shall promptly notify Target of the facts giving rise to such
2 1 failures to warn ('Notice of Default"). The Notice of Default shall provide sufficient
22 information regarding the alleged default, including but not limited to product name and
23 identification code(s), as well as date on and location at which the alleged violaQonwas
24 observed, to allow Target to ascertain the nature of the alleged default and take steps to
25 cure said alleged default. In the event Target implements such measures as are necessary
26 to correct the alleged Default within 14 days of receiving the Nohce of Default and notifies
27 plaintiff of the corrective measures within 5 days of the measures being Taken ("Notice of
28 Cure"), no hrther action by plaintiffwill be taken. If defendant fails to take correct
Parker, Mrllkn.CloQ
O'HW ~ ~ n m u c ~ r o n
8
142275
CONSENT JUDGMENT
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
within the 14 day's after receiving the Notice of Default, plaintiff may proceed
available hrther action concerning Covered Products. Corrective measures are
limited to (1) placement of warnings using the language specified in paragraph 7.2 on
stickers placed on the packaging of the Covered Products, (2) removal of the Covered
5 Products from sale until warnings are placed on the products, or (3.) placement of a shelf
6 warning consistent with Paragraph 7.2.1.
5.3.
7
The provisions of Paragraph 5.2 shall not apply to any action to enforce this
8 Consent Judgment against any Settling Defendant other than Target, and the Target
9 Releasees, as identified in Paragraph 4.1 of this Consent Judgment.
6. MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT
6.1.
12
Except as provided for in Paragraph 7.4, this Consent Judment may be
I
13 modified only upon written agreement of the parties and upon entry of a modified Consent
I
14 Judgment by the Court thereon, or upon motion of any party as provided by law and upon
El
15 entry of a modified Consent Judgment by the Court.
7. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - CLEAR AND REASONABLE WARNING
7.1.
The parties recognize that most, if not all, of the companies that manufacture,
distribute, or import Covered Products for sale in California have either agreed to
injunctive relief with plaintiff that is similar to the injunctive relief provided in this
Consent Judgment, or are aware of and intend to provide Proposition 65 warnings for
Covered Products that contain 300 ppm or more lead in the bulk PVC. Plaintiff also
cognizes that the number of (a) Vendors from whom Target purchases Covered Products,
(b) merchants responsible for making such purchases, renders it impracticable for
to directly comply with the provisions of Paragraph 7. Accordingly, it is the intent
26 of the parties that the injunctive provisions of this Paragraph 7 are not accepted by or
27 binding on Target and the Target Releasees unless, and only to the extent that, Plaintiff
28 provides a Notice of Default as described in Paragraph 5.2. Furthermore, as to Taget and
P a b , Millilcco. C M
W n SSarnucliin
I
9
162275
CONSENT JUDGMENT
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
Iv
U
he Target Releasees only, the provisions of Paragraph 7 shall apply only to those Private
2abel Covered Products except as provided in Paragraph 7.2.1.
7.2.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, all Covered Products shall comply
vith this Paragraph. Proposition 65 warnings provided for Covered Products must include
me of the following warning statements:
PROP 65 WARNING:
This product contains lead, a chemical
known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects
or other reproductive harm. Washyaw hands aper handling this
product.
or
PROP 65 WARNING. Handling the coated electrical wires of this
product exposes you to lead, a chemical known to the State of
California to cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive
harm. Wash Iran& a$er use.
or
PROP 65 WARNING: Handling the coated electrical wires of this
product exposes you to lead, a chemical known to the State of
California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive
harm. Wash hands afer use.
'he phrase "PROP 65" may be excluded at the Settling Defendant's discretion. If
~cluded,the phrase "PROP 65" shall be in bold, capitals. The word 'WARNING" shall
e in bold, capitals. The words "Wmh hands afer handhg fhisproducf' or "Wash hands
fter use," shall be in bold and italicized or underlined. Such warning shall be
rominently affixed to or printed on each Covered Product, its label, package or displayed
ith such conspicuousuess, as compared with other words, statements, designs, or devices
n the Covered Product, its label, package or display as to render it likely to be read and
nderstood by an ordinary individual under customary conditions prior to the purchase of
ie Covered Product. The warning shall be at least the same size as the largest of any
10
CONSENT JUDGMENT
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
u
V
ther safety warnings, if any, on the product container and the word "warning" shall be in
11capital letters and in bold print.
7.2.0.
For Covered Products which are not Private Label Covered Products,
Target and Target Releasees agree to either (1) comply with Paragraph
7.2, (2) not sell the Covered Product, or (3) sell the Covered Products
with a "point-of-sale" warning sign ("shelfwaming"). If a point-of-sale
.warning is used, the
sign shall use the language specified in
Paragraph 7.2, shall be at least 4 inches by 6 inches in size, and shall be
placed on the shelf or display where the Covered Product is sold. The
provisions of this Paragraph 7.2.1 shaU not apply to Settling Defendants
other than Target and ~ a r ~~eleasees,
et
as identified in Paragraph 4.1 of
this Consent Judgment.
7.3.
Warnings pursuant to Paragraph 7.2 are not required:
7.3.1.
for any Covered Product received by Target, for retail sale in California
before October 1,2002 (the "Effective Date");.
7.3.2.
for any Covered Product shipped for retail sale in California by any.
Opt-in defendant before the Effective Date;
7.3.3.
if the PVC used in the wire coating of a Covered Product has lead
content by weight of less than 0.03% (300 parts per million "300 ppm"),
using a test method of sufficient sensitivity to establish a l i t of
quantification (as distinguished fiom detection) of less than 300 ppm;
7.3.4.
for Covered Products distributed, mxketed, sold or shipped for sale or
use outside the State of California.
7.4.
As to any Covered Products, if Proposition 65 wamings for lead or lead
)mpounds no4onger should be required, or if warning language different from that set
8rth.in this Consent Judgment is required, because of a change or changes in law, or based
n a California Attorney General opinion letter specific as to the Covered Products,
ettling Defendants shall have no fiuther obligations pursuant to this Consent Judgment.
11
CONSENT JUDGMENT
2275
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
V
d
A Settling Defendant shall provide written notice to plaintiff of its intent to m o m its
conduct under the terms of this Paragraph, and of the basis for its intent, no less than thirty
~bjectionwithin thirty (30) days of its receipt of such notice, or such objection by the
plaintiff shall be waived.
7.5.
The requirement for product labeling set forth above is imposed pursuant t~ thc
.ems of this Consent Judgment. The parties recognize that product labeling is not the
:xclusive method of providing a warning under Proposition 65 and its implementing
.egulations.
3.
OPT IN PROCEDURES
8.1.
This Consent Judgment is executed with the understanding that additional
~ersonsnot parties to this Consent Judgment have employed ten or more persons and have
nanufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold Covered Products for use in the State of
2alifornia. For purposes of this Consent Judgment, the term Terson" shall have the same
neaning as the term "Person" as defined in California Health & Safety Code
125249.11(a). Said Persons are subject either to a separate suit or may be added to the
:omplaint as defendants.
8.2.
At any time within 60 days after the entry of this Consent Judgment, Target
nay provide MEJF with a list of those Persons who manufacture, distribute, or sell
:overed Products through or in association with Target and who wish to be bound by the
:rms of this Consent Judgment ("Opt-In Defendants"). For each Opt-In Defendant,
'arget agrees to provide MEJF with the mailing address for each Opt-In Defendant and
ither a representative sample of each of the Opt-In Defendant Covered Products which
dateel may have tested, or other evidence upon which Mateel may base an adequate
Zertificate of Merit.
8.3.
Not later than fourteen (14) days after MEJF receives the Opt-In List, M E E
grees, in consideration of the obligations undertaken by Settling Defendants pursuant to
12
ms
CONSENT JUDGMENT
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
paragraph 8.2 above, to send notices of violations pursuant to California Health and Safety
Code § 25249.7(d) to all Opt In Defendants on the Opt In List for which Certificate of
Merits can be reasonably prepared, to the California Attorney General, to every California
district attorney, and to every city attorney required to receive such a notice pursuant to
Health & Safety Code 5 25249.7. The notices MEJF sends pursuant to this Section shall
be substantially similar to the Notice Letter sent to Target and a copy shall be served on
counsel for Target.
8.4.
Any Person that has employed ten or more persons, has manufactured,
marketed, distributed or sold Covered Products for use in the State of California, and has
not received a 60-Day Notice *om MEJF previous to entcy of this Consent Judgment
concerning the same violation, may become a defendant in this case and a party to this
Consent Judgment by (1) executing a "STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
md ORDER" &the form &ed
hereto as Exhibit A, and thereby agreeing to the
njunctive relief provisions of this Consent Judgment, and (2) within 10 days of the entry
~fthe STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT and ORDER, paying MEJF the
mount of $2,000 for the reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred in testing the
lpt-In Defendants products, preparing a Certificate of Merit, sending the 60 Day Notice of
Violation, and securing the amendment of the Complaint and Consent Judgment, and
laying $33,000 to the Environmental Protection and Information Center ("EPIC") in lieu
)f civil penalties for past violations. The payment will be spent on informing the public
egarding toxic exposures or on activities and programs to reduce exposures. The moneys
:hallnot be spent on funding attorney's fees for Proposition 65 litigation. EPIC is a
Mifornia non-profit environmental organization.
.
NOTICES
9.1.
All notices or correspondence to be given pursuant to this Consent Judgment or
elating to this Consent Judgment shall be served on any party by the others at the
ollowing addresses:
13
CONSENT JUDGMEZIT
12275
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
For Plaintiff:
William Verick
Klamath Environmental Law Center
424 First Street
Eureka, CA 95501
For Target:
Peg Schoenfelder
Target LegalPro 65 Compliance
22301 Foothill B vd, MS 4135
Hayward, CA 94541
P
.ll matters required hereunder after entry of this Consent .Tud&ent shall be served by
xtified mail (with return receipt), overnight delivery by recognized courier service, or by
ersonal delivery.
D. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
10.1. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to implement the Consent
~dgmentmade.
I. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
11.1. This Consent Judgment contains the sole and entire agreement and
iderstanding of the parties with respect to the entire subject matter hereof, and any and al
ior discussions, negotiations, commitments and understandings related hereto. No
presentations, oral or otherwise, express or implied, other than those contained herein
we been made by any party hereto. No other agreements not specifically referred to
rein, oral or otherwise, shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties.
! GOVERNING LAW
12.1. The validity, construction, and performance of this Consent Judgment shall be
werned by the laws of the State of California, without reference to any conflicts of law
ovisions of California law.
14
CONSENT ILiDOMENT
275
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
L.
-
13. DUTIES LIMlTED TO CALIFORNIA
13.1. This Consent Judgment shall have no effect on Covered Products sold by
Settling Defendants outside the State of California.
14. COURT APPROVAL
14.1. If the Court does not approve this Consent Judgment, it shall be of no force or
:ffect, and cannot be used in any proceeding for any purpose.
15. COUNTERPARTS
15.1.
This Consent Judgment may be executed in counterparts or by facsimile,
:ach of which shall be.deemed an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall
:onstitute one and the same document.
6. AUTHORITY TO STIPULATE
16.1. Each signatory to this Consent Judgment certifies that he or she is filly
uthorized by the party he or she represents to enter into this Consent Judgment and to
xecute it on behalf of the party represented and legally to bind that party.
7. COURTFINDINGS
17.1. After review of the documents submitted by the parties, considering
le noticed motion filed by plaintiff, and as part of approving this settlement
nd entering this Consent Judgment the Court finds (1) the warnings required in
le Consent Judgment comply with the requirements of Proposition 65;
1) the cy pres funding in lieu of civil penalties specified in the Consent
udgment is reasonable based on the criteria in Cal. Health &
15
CONSENT JUDGMENT
2275
--.. - -,. -..
..
"8
I.
)
"
.
"
A
1~iuwnrtu~;
.V
JUn
- 03 11 :CHAM;
© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
'
Page 17/17
&%ty Code §25249,7(b)(2); aod (3) !he hettomdys fees awarded under the Consent
u d b w i t are reasonable under California Law.
.
.
..
IT is SO STIPULATED:
MATEELENMRONMENTA~
JUSTICE
Dated!
.
'
FOUNDATION
.
.'
By:
W~UiamVcnck
y-7
Jud e of the Superior Court
.
.
..
16
CONSENTJUDGMENT
a115
.
.
'
.