TCG Clients Oppose Attorney General's Motion Re: 45-Day Rule
Dr. Anthony Held, Russell Brimer, and John Moore, clients of The Chanler Group--whom previously filed a lawsuit against the California Attorney General (AG) challenging the validity of the AG's regulation (11 CCR sec. 3003) requiring citizen enforcers to file a motion to approve a Proposition 65 settlement at least 45 days before the hearing on the motion, rather than 16 court days before the hearing as allowed by Code of Civil Procedure sec.1005(b) --today filed an opposition brief to the AG's motion for judgment on the pleadings, which seeks dismissal of the case. The AG's regulation clearly conflicts with the state statute. In their opposition brief, Held, Brimer, and Moore argue that by adopting the 45-day regulation, the Attorney General’s Office has unconstitutionally arrogated to itself a legislative function of determining the amount of notice required for filing a motion to approve a Proposition 65 settlement and is thereby clearly interfering with the Legislature’s enactment of Code of Civil Procedure sec.1005(b), which had determined that 16-court days was a "reasonable balance" between the court's need for time to review motions and litigants' desire to have their motions heard in a timely manner.
Held, Brimer, and Moore argue that: "The State’s ongoing budget crisis has adversely affected both the judicial and executive branches of state government. Courts and clerks’ offices are short on staff and impaired in their ability to expeditiously process court filings and motions, which when added to the challenged 45-day notice period for motions to approve Proposition 65 settlements, creates further delay to the approval of settlements that are in the public interest. This delay, in turn, postpones the collection of millions of dollars in civil penalties payable to the State of California and extends injunctive relief deadlines—which most often require defendants to reformulate their products to virtually eliminate the presence of chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm—that are often tied to the date of court approval."
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.
Read Held, Brimer, and Moore's Opposition Brief Below.