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

Tamar Kaloustian v. Vigo Importing Company Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive

Published: Oct. 1, 2021 | Result Date: Aug. 19, 2021 | Filing Date: Mar. 18, 2021 |

Case number: 21STCV11105 Settlement –  $50,000

Judge

Richard Fruin

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Caspar S. Jivalagian
(KJT Law Group LLP)

Vache A. Thomassian
(KJT Law Group LLP)


Defendant

Jeffrey J. Parker
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)


Facts

Tamar Kaloustian is an individual residing in California who seeks to promote awareness of exposures to toxic chemicals and improve human health by reducing or eliminating hazardous substances contained in consumer products. Vigo Importing Company, Inc. is a family owned food production company based out of Tampa, Florida. Vigo claims to "use only the best and freshest ingredients to produce truly unique products at economical prices." However, Kaloustian was concerned about the production of a risotto with porcini mushroom dish from Vigo's product line of traditional Italian cuisine. Kaloustian, acting in the interest of the general public in the State of California, filed a complaint against Vigo.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendants introduced a product contaminated with significant quantities of lead into the California marketplace, exposing consumers of the product to lead. Plaintiff further contended that, despite the fact that defendant exposed consumers to lead, defendant provided no adequate warnings about the reproductive hazards associated with lead exposure. Defendants' conduct thus violated the warning provision of Proposition 65, Health & Safety Code Section 25249.6.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions and contended that there is no exposure and no violation under Proposition 65 for an alleged failure to warn.

Result

The case settled for $50,000. Defendant is permanently enjoined from manufacturing and distributing in the California products that expose a person to a daily exposure value of more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day unless it meets the warning requirements.


#137829

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

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