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

Calsafe Research Center Inc. v. Louisville Vegan Jerky Co. LLC, and Does 1 to 10

Published: Nov. 10, 2023 | Result Date: Aug. 1, 2023 | Filing Date: Feb. 3, 2023 |

Case number: 23TRCV00311 Settlement –  $35,000

Judge

Ronald F. Frank

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Joseph R. Manning Jr.
(Law Offices of Joseph R. Manning Jr. APC)


Defendant

George C. Salmas
(The Food Lawyers)

Michael R. Hambly
(The Food Lawyers)


Facts

On July 29, 2022, CalSafe Research Center, Inc. sent Louisville Vegan Jerky Co., Inc., a Kentucky limited liability company, and public enforcement agencies a letter alleging that LVJ had violated provisions of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 and its implementing regulations, commonly known as Proposition 65. Specifically, CalSafe alleged that LVJ's Maple Bacon product contained unsafe levels of lead without providing a warning to consumers. CalSafe filed suit against LVJ in Los Angeles County Superior Court on February 3, 2023.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: The plaintiff contended that the defendant manufactured, distributed, or sold products in California; that laboratory testing revealed unsafe levels of lead in the defendant's maple bacon products; that handling or ingesting the product could expose California residents to unsafe levels of lead; that lead is a chemical requiring a Proposition 65 warning label; that the defendant did not provide a label warning consumers of the possibility of, and dangers associated with, exposure to lead by using the product; and that this failure to warn was a violation of Proposition 65. Accordingly, the plaintiff contended the defendant was liable for civil penalties and should be enjoined from selling the offending products in California without a warning.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The defendant denied any wrongdoing or liability and all the plaintiff's material allegations.

Result

The parties entered a consent judgment in which the defendant admitted no wrongdoing or liability but agreed to either reformulate or provide a Proposition 65 warning on the identified products and to pay $35,000 to settle the plaintiff's claims.


#141829

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

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