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. Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings Inc., Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation, Burlington Stores Inc., Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, and Does 1-10

Published: Dec. 23, 2021 | Result Date: Aug. 31, 2021 | Filing Date: Nov. 20, 2019 |

Case number: 19STCV42111 Settlement –  $126,000

Judge

Maureen Duffy-Lewis

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Reuben Yeroushalmi
(Yeroushalmi & Yeroushalmi)

Tiffine E. Malamphy
(Yeroushalmi & Yeroushalmi)

Shannon E. Royster
(Yeroushalmi & Yeroushalmi)


Defendant

Matthew S. Kenefick
(Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell LLP)


Facts

Lead is a chemical known to cause cancer and developmental and reproductive toxicity, and is fully subject to Proposition 65 warning requirements and discharge prohibitions. Likewise, Di (2-ethylhexyl) Phthatlate (DEHP) has been listed by California as a chemical known to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm, and is subject to Proposition 65 requirements. Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. brought an action against Burlington Coat Factory Investment Holdings, Inc., Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation, Burlington Stores, Inc., and Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation under Proposition 65.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that Proposition 65 was violated for failure to give clear and reasonable warnings of exposure to DEHP contained in Limited Too hampers, and lead contained in Heart Naturals Moringa Powder, which are sold, manufactured, and/or distributed by defendant in California. Plaintiff asserted that defendants intended or knew California consumers would use and consume moringa, thereby exposing them to lead through oral ingestion, hand to mouth pathways, inhalation, and trans-dermal absorption when consumers eat and handle the product. Plaintiff further contended that defendants intended or knew consumers would be exposed to DEHP by touching and handling the specified hampers.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions.

Result

$126,000 settlement. After the effective date, defendant shall not distribute for sale in California, or manufacture for sale in California, or offer for sale in California, any hamper products that exceed more than 0.1% (1,000 parts per million) by weight of DEHP; and any moringa products unless the level of lead in the moringa products does not exceed more than 40 parts per billion (ppb) of lead. Defendant agrees to no longer sell the covered products. Any existing products will follow the Proposition 65 compliant warnings.


#138205

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

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