Case Number: BC679090 Hearing Date: May 23, 2018 Dept: 40

Plaintiff Shefa LMV, Inc. sues defendant Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. for injunctive relief and civil penalties based on allegations that defendants violated Health and Safety Code section 25249.5, et seq., known as Proposition or Prop 65, by distributing or selling five products containing toxins without warning labels.

On October 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint for violation of Prop 65. On April 2, 2018, the parties signed a “Stipulation and [Proposed] Consent Judgment as to Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.” (Stipulation), although no notice of settlement was filed. Greenbaum Decl., Exh. 1 (Stipulation).

On April 10, 2018, plaintiff filed this unopposed motion to enter a consent judgment between it and defendant. The Court considered the moving papers and rules as follows.

Analysis: On April 2, 2018, the parties executed the Stipulation, a copy of which plaintiff submitted. The Stipulation contains the following material terms: defendants shall (1) not distribute the “Covered Products” (two plastic purses, plastic handled pliers, plastic handled floral cutters, and a sewing tape measure) unless (A) they are reformulated to contain less DEHP, DINP, or DIDP or (B) they are accompanied by compliant warnings and (2) pay a total of $26,000, which includes $4,000 in civil penalties and $22,000 in attorneys’ fees. The civil penalty shall be apportioned as 75% or $3,000 to the Office of Environment Health Hazard Assessment and 25% or $1,000 payable to plaintiff.

The proposed warning is clear, reasonable, and compliant based on the proposed language and requirement that it be prominent and conspicuous. See Stipulation ¶ 2.3.

The Court notes its concern with whether the $4,000 civil penalty may be unreasonably low. The parties do not state how many of the “Covered Products” have been sold in California, so the extent of the public’s exposure to toxic chemicals cannot be ascertained. Furthermore, plaintiff’s representation that “[a]s soon as possible, Settling Defendant unilaterally took steps to place warning labels on or reformulate the Covered Products” is not supported by the citation offered in support, and no other part of the moving papers indicate that defendant acted “as soon as possible” or unilaterally regarding the alleged violations. The execution of the Stipulation, however, indicates defendant’s willingness to comply with the law. Counsel should be prepared to provide information at the hearing relating to the extent of defendant’s alleged violations and the time it took defendant to comply.

Concerning attorneys’ fees, plaintiff began investigating the covered products two years ago. Greenbaum Decl. ¶ 45. This matter was fairly routine. Counsel represents that he and his colleagues undertook the following activities: engaged experts to discuss and review laboratory analyses, prepare and serve notice of violation to public prosecutors and the Attorney General, preparing the complaint, negotiating and drafting the Stipulation, and drafting this motion. Greenbaum Decl. ¶¶ 53-58. In light of the longevity of this investigation and the tasks performed, the Court finds that $22,000 is reasonable.

The proposed consent judgment is in the public interest because it is designed to reduce potential exposure to hazardous chemicals.

The motion is GRANTED.

The Court intends to sign the proposed order and judgment and plaintiff is to give notice.