DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24619214·sf·Civil·Proposition 65 Settlement
Hearing 11 months agoGRANTED

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH VS. ECOLAB USA INC. ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Court Approval And Entry Of Consent Judgments As To Kamedis Inc. And Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Hearing date
Sep 24, 2025
Department
302
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffCENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DefendantECOLAB USA INC.
DefendantKamedis Inc.
DefendantDollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Ruling

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Wednesday, September 24, 2025, Line 8. PLAINTIFF CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH's Motion For Court Approval And Entry Of Consent Judgments As To Kamedis Inc. And Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff Center for Environmental Health's unopposed Motion For Court Approval And Entry Of Consent Judgments As To Kamedis Inc. And Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is GRANTED. Good cause appearing, Plaintiff's motion to approve settlements pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 25249.7(f) and Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is granted.

Based on the record before it, the court finds: (1) the injunctive relief required by the settlements complies with Proposition 65; (2) the penalty amounts, including any additional settlement payments in lieu of civil penalties (see 11 C.C.R. 3204) are reasonable based on the criteria set forth in Health and Safety Code section 25249.7(b)(2); and, (3) the awards of attorney's fees is reasonable under California law. The consent judgments shall be entered consistent with the Proposition 65 Settlement and the parties' [Proposed] Consent Judgment.

Going forward, the Parties are informed agreements with options and different outcomes pursuant to each option are disfavored because the court is left with uncertainty regarding the precise result it is approving, and such agreements tend to give rise to complex enforcement issues that are difficult to resolve on truncated records. In short, final settlements with certain, not variable, terms are preferable.

Prior to the hearing time, Moving Party shall lodge by email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org a proposed order quoting the text above verbatim. Prior to the hearing time, Moving Party must lodge by email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org a copy of the proposed consent judgments executed by all relevant parties.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ)

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share