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

Sara Hammond v. Orly Shoe Corp.

Published: Dec. 30, 2021 | Result Date: Oct. 20, 2021 | Filing Date: Jul. 1, 2021 |

Case number: RG21103455 Settlement –  $24,500

Judge

Stephen D. Kaus

Court

Alameda County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Joseph Dell Agliozzo
(Joseph D. Agliozzo Law Corporation)


Defendant

Carol R. Brophy
(Steptoe LLP)


Facts

Orly Shoe Corp. is a New York corporation that engages in the business of distributing products for sale in the State of California. Sara Hammond is a citizen of the State of California. On February 1, 2021, Hammond served a 60-Day Notice of Violation regarding alleged violations of Proposition 65. In the notice, Hammond also mentioned her intent to file an enforcement action in the public interest. On February 17, 2021, a Supplemental 60-Day Notice of Violation was served that named Orly as the manufacturer or distributor of TJX PVC reusable carrying cases for face mask kits. No public prosecutor filed an enforcement action in response to the Notices of Violation, so on July 1, 2017, Hammond filed a complaint seeking penalty and injunctive relief in Alameda County Superior Court.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that Orly manufactured or distributed reusable face mask carrying kits for sale in the State of California; that these products contained Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate; that DEHP is a chemical that requires a Proposition 65 warning because it is known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity; that Orly knowingly failed to provide the required Proposition 65 warning to California consumers; that this failure to warn led to citizens of California being unknowingly exposed to DEHP; and that this failure violated Proposition 65, so Orly should be subject to monetary penalties and a permanent injunction compelling it to provide the Proposition 65 exposure warning to California consumers.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that it had not violated any statute, law, rule, or regulation, and it denied the allegations in the complaint and the 60-Day Notice of Violation.

Result

The parties entered into a consent judgment whereby Orly admitted no wrongdoing but will pay $24,500, representing $23,500 in costs and attorneys' fees incurred by Hammond and $1,000 in civil penalties. Orly also agreed to either cease selling the products covered in the complaint in California, or alternatively, to affix appropriate warnings to the covered products distributed in California in the future.


#138208

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

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