Keep America Safe and Beautiful v. Azure Farms, Inc.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to approve the Proposition 65 settlement and enter the consent judgment.

Discussion

California Health and Safety Code section 25249.7(f)(4) requires judicial approval of the settlement of a Proposition 65 action between private parties. The court may not grant approval unless it finds that all the statutory requirements have been met. (Consumer Defense Group v. Rental Housing Industry Members (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1207.) As set forth in the statute:

If there is a settlement of an action brought by a person in the public interest under subdivision (d), the plaintiff shall submit the settlement other than a voluntary dismissal in which no consideration is received from the defendant, to the court for approval upon noticed motion, and the court may approve the settlement only if the court makes all of the following findings:

(A) The warning that is required by the settlement complies with this chapter.

(B) The award of attorney’s fees is reasonable under California law.

(C) The penalty amount is reasonable based on the criteria set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b).

(Health and Saf. Code § 25249.7(f)(4).) The Court has reviewed the settlement terms and proposed consent judgment. After proper notice, no objections have been filed. As to factor (A), the court has reviewed the moving papers

and finds that the proposed warnings are in reasonable compliance with the requirements of Proposition 65. As to (C), the penalty of $4,000 is reasonable under the criteria of the statute. With regards to factor (B), the court finds that there is sufficient information to determine that the requested fees and costs in the amount of $23,000 are reasonable. The amount of fees requested is less than Plaintiff’s documented lodestar calculation. Accordingly, the settlement is approved and the Court will enter the consent judgment.

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.