Motion – Settlement; Case Management Conference; Order - Show Cause – Failure to Appear
Browse all Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement rulings statewide →
t
Plaintiff’s motion for approval of the Proposition 65 settlement and consent judgment is GRANTED.
The court finds that the settlement was the result of arm’s length negotiations by the parties, and that it is in the interest of the public. The settlement requires Defendant Roma to provide Proposition 65 warnings for its DEHP containing vinyl/PVC apparel and vinyl/PVC gloves, and the notice language set forth in the consent judgment complies with the statutory requirements of Proposition 65. The civil penalty of $2,000 is reasonable. The court has also reviewed the attorney’s fees request for $26,000 and finds it to be reasonable pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act.
All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.
The Zoom appearance information for June, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1 Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070
If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”