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

Consumer Advocacy Group Inc. v. Dollar Kings Inc., Dime Enterprises Inc., Dollar King Los Feliz, Kooba LLC, and Does 1-100

Published: Aug. 27, 2021 | Result Date: Jul. 23, 2021 | Filing Date: Oct. 16, 2019 |

Case number: 19STCV37064 Settlement –  $450,000

Judge

Michelle Williams Court

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Reuben Yeroushalmi
(Yeroushalmi & Yeroushalmi)

Tiffine E. Malamphy
(Yeroushalmi & Yeroushalmi)

Shannon E. Royster
(Yeroushalmi & Yeroushalmi)


Defendant

Georgia C. Ravitz
(Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati PC)

Scott A. Cohn
(Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati)


Facts

Dollar Kings, Inc., Dime Enterprises Inc., Dollar King Los Feliz, Kooba, LLC., and Mystic Apparel, LLC. manufacture, market, distribute, and/or sell within the State of California: shower caddies with polymer Suction Cups, women's plastic/vinyl Wallets, plastic wallets, plastic accessory bags, sunglasses with polymer nose pieces, soap dishes with plastic suction cups, toddler's flip flops with plastic straps, dresses for kids with plastic components, and cross body bags with PVC. Consumer Advocacy Group brought an action alleging defendants violated California's Proposition 65 because the products contained either: Di (2-ethylexyl) Phthalate (DEHP), Di-n-butyl (DBP), or Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP)--chemicals that can cause cancer, reproductive harm, or birth defects.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended defendants knowingly and intentionally exposed consumers in California to DEHP, DPB, and/or DBP when defendants manufactured, distributed, or sold the products without providing clear and adequate warnings. Plaintiff contended the products can expose consumers to DEHP, DPB, and/or DBP through ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation. Specifically, plaintiff contended the products by defendant Mystic Apparel exposed children to DEHP and DINP.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all of the contentions.

Result

The case settled for $450,000. Defendant Mystic Apparel cannot directly sell, offer for sale, ship for sale, any of the products unless the level of DINP does not exceed more than 0.1 percent by weight, or unless the products are in existing inventory as of the "Effective Date" and sold with a warning.


#137586

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

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