This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
Consumer Product Exposure
Prop. 65 Chemicals

Center for Environmental Health v. Britax Child Safety Inc. et al.

Published: Feb. 15, 2014 | Result Date: Jan. 24, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: RG13683725 Settlement –  Injunctive Relief

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mark N. Todzo
(Lexington Law Group)


Defendant

Melissa A. Jones
(Stoel Rives LLP)

Robert L. Falk
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)

William F. Tarantino
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)

Daniel S. Silverman
(Venable LLP)

Kevin T. Haroff

Trenton H. Norris
(Hogan Lovells)

Robert C. Goodman

Stephanie A. Stroup
(Federal Express Corp.)

J. Robert Maxwell
(Rogers, Joseph & ODonnell APC)

Jeffrey B. Margulies
(Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP)


Facts

The Oakland-based nonprofit, Center for Environmental Health filed a complaint against Britax Child Safety Inc., Angeles Corp., Belnick Inc., Childrens Factory Inc., Combi USA Inc., Comfort Products Inc., Delta Enterprise Corp., Dex Products, Energizer Personal Care LLC, Foundations Worldwide Inc., Playtex Manufacturing Inc., Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., Williams-Sonoma Inc., Contour Products Inc., and Victory Land Group Inc. The action alleged that some of the furniture and baby products defendants manufacture contained toxic flame retardants.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The Center contended that defendants' products contained tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate, or TDCPP, a chemical that was known in the State of California to cause cancer. The Center contended that TDCPP, a flame retardant, was a toxic chemical found in foam used as padding or cushioning in defendants' products. As a result, defendants were exposing consumers to this toxic chemical without the requisite warning labels under Proposition 65. Plaintiff claimed the defendants violated the law by failing to provide the requisites Proposition 65 warning labels.

Result

The parties agreed to settle the matter. As part of the settlement, defendants agreed to remove the flame retardant from their products and will pay civil penalties. The Center has agreed to waive a significant portion of the civil penalties if defendants agree to eliminate all toxic flame-retardants, in addition to the TDCPP that was at issue in the lawsuit.


#104270

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390