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.

Consumer Law
Consumer Protection
Violation of Proposition 65

Russell Brimer v. Anest Iwata-Medea Inc., et al.

Published: Dec. 13, 2014 | Result Date: Oct. 6, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: RG14732193 Settlement –  $48,500

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Harris A. Weinstein

David J. Voorhees
(Voorhees & Bailey LLP)


Defendant

R. Christopher Locke
(Farella, Braun & Martel LLP)


Facts

Russell Brimer sued Anest Iwata-Medea Inc., claiming its products contained components that violated Proposition 65.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that defendant manufactured or otherwise made available metal nozzle fittings containing lead, which was a chemical known in the state to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm. Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to provide the requisite Proposition 65 health hazard warnings.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied plaintiff's allegations, and maintained that it was in compliance with all laws.

Result

The parties agreed to a consent judgment, which provided both for injunctive relief and payment of $16,500 in civil penalties. As part of the injunctive relief, Anest agreed to sell only reformulated products and to provide the requisite warnings. Anest also agreed to pay costs to Brimer in the amount of $32,000.

Other Information

FILING DATE: July 9, 2014.


#119383

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

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