Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV34003, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV34003    Hearing Date: October 18, 2023    Dept: 68

Motion for Order to Approve and Enter Consent Judgment

Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc., vs. Ross Stores, Inc., et al., 20STCV34003

Motion

            Plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this motion for order to approve and enter consent judgment because it has reached a consent judgment with Defendant Ross Stores, Inc. (Defendant) regarding certain products that Defendant had been distributing.

            The consent judgment resolves Plaintiff’s cause of action 9, brought pursuant to The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Cal. Health & Safety Code (HSC) § 25249.5, et seq. (Proposition 65) regarding exposure to certain chemicals in the covered products.

            Plaintiff represents to the Court that the injunctive relief complies with Proposition 65 because Defendant will not order any covered products for sale into California with any component that contains the listed chemicals. Second, Plaintiff represents that Defendant’s payment of $12,020.00 in civil penalties is reasonable under the factors outlined in HSC § 25249.7(b)(2). The consent judgment also calls for an additional settlement payment of $8,980.00 to Plaintiff, which is a proper offset to the civil penalty because Plaintiff will use the funds to address the same public harm alleged in this action. Third, Plaintiff represents that Defendant’s payment of $84,000.00 is reasonable because Plaintiff has been working to litigate this matter for over four years. Finally, Plaintiff represents that the consent judgment serves the public interest.

            The Injunctive Relief complies with Proposition 65 because reformulation can be sufficient in lieu of a warning and because Defendant shall provide a compliant warning on existing inventory if they contain more than 0.1wt% of the chemicals. Further, the warning language is clear and the manner of transmission is reasonable.

            The civil penalty is also reasonable under the statutory factors, which are as follows:

                        (A) The nature and extent of the violation.

(B) The number of, and severity of, the violations.

(C) The economic effect of the penalty on the violator.

(D) Whether the violator took good faith measures to comply with this chapter and the time these measures were taken.

(E) The willfulness of the violator’s misconduct.

(F) The deterrent effect that the imposition of the penalty would have on both the violator and the regulated community as a whole.

(G) Any other factor that justice may require.

(HSC § 25249.7(b)(2).)

            Finally, the settlement serves the public interest because Defendant agreed to reformulate the covered products ordered for sale prior to the effective date and will provide compliant  warnings.

Order

            Plaintiff’s motion to approve and enter the consent judgment is GRANTED.