exhibit a - attorney general of california · pdf filefiled 1 william verick, csb #140972 . n...
If you can't read please download the document
TRANSCRIPT
FILED
1 WILLIAM VERICK, CSB #140972 N
Klamath Environmental Law Center OCT 0 1 20142 FREDRIC EVENSON, CSB #198059 424 First Street
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALI FORNI3 Eureka, CA 95501 COUNTY OF HUMBOLDTTelephone: (707) 268-8900
4 E-mail: [email protected]
5 DAVID H. WILLIAMS, CSB #144479 BRIAN ACREE, CSB #202505
6
~ 1990 N. California Blvd. 8th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 7 Telephone: (510) 847-2356
E-mail: dhwill7@gmaiLcom
Attorneys for Plaintiff 0 9
8
MATEEL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION () 10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
13 COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
14
15
16 MATEEL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION, CASE NO. DR-140469
17
18 vs.
Plaintiff, [~] ORDER IMPLEMENTING TERMS OF PROPOSITION 65 SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT
19
20
21
ANDERSON'S MAPLE SYRUP, INC., et ai.,
Defendants.
JUDGMENT
Date: Time: Courtroom:
October 1, 2014 1:45 p.m. 8
22
23 In the above-entitled action, plaintiff Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation and
24 defendants ANDERSON'S MAPLE SYRUP, INC.; B&G FOODS, INC.; BASCOM F AMIL Y
25 FARMS, INC.; CIT ADELLE MAPLE SYRUP PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE; DUTCH
26 GOLD HONEY, INC.; GREAT NORTHERN MAPLE PRODUCTS INC.; L B MAPLE TREAT
27 CORPORATION; LES INDUSTRIES BERNARD & FILS LTEE; SPECIALTY BRANDS OF
28 Order Approving Settlement and Implementing Terms of Stipulation for Consent Judgment. Mateel v. Anderson's Maple Syrup, Case No. DR140469
mailto:[email protected]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMERICA, INC.; and, VERMONT MAPLE SUGAR COMPANY, INC., being represented by
their respective counsel and having agreed that judgment be entered pursuant to the terms of the
[proposed] Consent Judgment ("Consent Judgment") entered into by the parties, and following
issuance of an order approving this Proposition 65 settlement agreement on October 1,2014.
Plaintiff's motion for approval of settlement and entry of Consent Judgment was heard on
noticed motion on October 1,2014. The court finds that:
1. The warnings and reformulation the Consent Judgment requires comply with the
requirements of Proposition 65.
2. The payments in lieu of civil penalties specified in the Consent Judgment are
reasonable and conform to the criteria of Health & Safety Code 25249.7(b)(2).
3. The attorneys fees awarded under the Consent Judgment are reasonable as are the
rates awarded the attorneys.
Based on these findings, the settlement and the Consent Judgment are approved.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that pursuant to Health &
Safety Code 25249.7()(4) and Civ. Proc. Code 664.6, judgment is entered in accordance
with the terms of the Consent Judgment attached hereto as Exhibit A. By stipulation of the
parties, the court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under Civ. Proc. Code 664.6.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
w. BRUCE WATSON Dated: OCT0 1 21)14
Judge of the Superior Court
Order Approving Settlement and Implementing Terms of StipUlation for Consent Judgment. Mateel v. Anderson's Maple Syrup, Case No. DRl40469 2
Exhibit A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MICHELE B. CORASH (BAR NO. 103653) [email protected] ALEJANDRO L. BRAS (BAR NO. 280558) [email protected] MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
Attorneys for Defendants ANDERSON'S MAPLE SYRUP, INC., B&G FOODS, INC., BASCOM FAMILY FARMS, INC., CITADELLE MAPLE SYRUP PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE, DUTCH GOLD HONEY, INC., GREAT NORTHERN MAPLE PRODUCTS, INC., L B MAPLE TREAT CORPORATION, LES INDUSTRIES BERNARD & FILES LTEE, SPECIALTY BRANDS OF AMERICA, INC, and VERMONT MAPLE SUGAR COMPANY, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
(Unlimited Jurisdiction)
MAT EEL ENVIRONMENTAL mSTICE FOUNDATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDERSON'S MAPLE SYRUP, INC.; B&G FOODS, INC.; BASCOM FAMILY FARMS, INC.; CITADELLE MAPLE SYRUP PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE; DUTCH GOLD HONEY, INC.; GREAT NORTHERN MAPLE PRODUCTS, INC.; L B MAPLE TREAT CORPORATION; LES INDUSTRIES BERNARD & FILES L TEE; SPECIALTY BRANDS OF AMERICA, INC; VERMONT MAPLE SUGAR COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1150, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. DR140469
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT
Date: October 1, 2014 Time: 1 :45 p.m. Courtroom: 8
rPROPOSEDl STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS Plaintiff Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation ("Plaintiff') has alleged
that ANDERSON'S MAPLE SYRUP, INC., B&G FOODS, INC., BASCOM FAMILY
FARMS, INC., CIT ADELLE MAPLE SYRUP PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE,
DUTCH GOLD HONEY, INC., GREAT NORTHERN MAPLE PRODUCTS, INC., L B
MAPLE TREAT CORPORATION, LES INDUSTRIES BERNARD & FILES LTEE,
SPECIALTY BRANDS OF AMERICA, INC, and VERMONT MAPLE SUGAR
COMPANY, INC. ("Settling Defendants") (collectively, "the Parties") violated The California
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act ("Proposition 65") by failing to provide
warnings that the 100% maple syrup that Settling Defendants manufacture, distribute, offer for
sale, sell, and/or pack for sale in California ("Covered Products") contains a chemical, lead,
known to the State ofCalifornia to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity; and
WHEREAS Settling Defendants deny the allegation and assert that, to the extent any lead
is present in the Covered Products, it is: 1) naturally occurring, as defined in California Code of
Regulations ("CCR") section 25501 and, 2) regardless of source, is present at levels below the
warning threshold set forth at CCR sections 25705 and 25805; and
WHEREAS Settling Defendants assert that when exposure to lead in the Covered
Products is determined in accordance with the trial court ruling in Environmental Law
Foundation v. Beech-Nut et ai., Superior Court of California, County ofAlameda, Case No.
RGI1597384 ("ELF") such exposure is clearly below the warning threshold, although Plaintiff
disputes that the ELF decision is correctly decided and that, in any event, the ELF decision cannot
be read to be clearly applicable to what the warning threshold should be in this case; and
NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants enter into this Stipulated Consent
Judgment ("Consent Judgment") as follows:
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. On or around June 6,2013, Plaintiff sent a 60-day notice of violation of Proposition 65
("60-day Notice") to Settling Defendants, the California Attorney General, the District
Attorneys of every County in the State of California, and the City Attorneys for every
City in the State of California with a population greater than 750,000.
fPROPOSEDl STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
1.2. The 60-day Notices alleged violations of Proposition 65's warning provision set out at
California Health and Safety Code section 25249.6. Plaintiff alleged that Settling
Defendants' 100% maple syrup products contain lead, a chemical known by the state of
California to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm.
1.3. On October 14,2014, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Settling Defendants in the
present action.
1.4. Each Settling Defendant is a company that employs ten (10) or more persons and that
manufactures, distributes, offers for sale, sells and/or packs for sale Covered Products in
California.
1.5. For purposes of this Consent Judgment only, Plaintiff and Settling Defendants stipulate
that: 1) this Court has jurisdiction over the allegations of violation contained in the
Complaint and personal jurisdiction over Defendants as to the acts alleged in the
Complaint; 2) venue is proper in the County of Humboldt; and 3) this Court has
jurisdiction to enter this Consent Judgment as a full and final resolution of all claims
which were or could have been raised in the Complaint and of all claims which were or
could have been raised by any person or entity based in whole or in part, directly or
indirectly, on the facts alleged in the 60-day Notice, in the present action, or arising
therefrom or related thereto, with respect to the Covered Products.
1.6. The Parties enter into this Consent Judgment as a full and final settlement of the disputed
claims as alleged in the 60-day Not