Court Denies Abad Foam’s Change of Venue Motion; TCG Clients’ Case Stays in Alameda Co.

Abad Foam, Inc.’s efforts to have the case against it transferred to Southern California were rejected by the Hon. George C. Hernandez, Jr. of the Alameda County Superior Court last month, when Judge Hernandez denied Abad’s Motion for Change of Venue on the grounds that Abad did not meet its burden of proof on the motion in failing to overcome the presumption that venue is proper in Alameda County. 

Abad had argued that its principal place of business is Orange County, and that it did business with Virco, whose principal place of business in California is in Los Angeles County.  All transactions between Abad and Virco allegedly took place in either Los Angeles or Orange County, and Abad unsuccessfully argued that a corporation with no contacts with Alameda County should not have to travel to defend itself against TCG client Laurence Vinocur’s allegations.

Vinocur countered that products containing Abad’s foam are available to consumers in Alameda County, that the products were sold without a warning (in violation of Proposition 65), and that Abad remains accountable under Proposition 65 even for “threatened violations” of the law.

The case remains pending in Alameda County Superior Court.

The Chanler Group represents citizen enforcers who, acting in the public interest, commence actions against businesses offering products for sale in California that contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm without first providing the health hazard warning required by Proposition 65. Citizen enforcers bringing Proposition 65 actions in the public interest may obtain a Court Judgment imposing civil penalties, an injunction requiring reformulation of products, and/or provision of health hazard warnings. The Chanler Group has represented citizen enforcers of Proposition 65 for more than twenty years.