Brimer v. Bubba Gump Shrimp Company Restaurants, Inc., et al.

The San Francisco Superior Court entered a Consent Judgment in the case Brimer v. Bubba Gump Shrimp Company Restaurants, Inc., et al., on July 20, 2005, which resolved citizen enforcer Russell Brimer’s allegations that defendants Bubba Gump Shrimp Company Restaurants, Inc., Hard Rock Café, Hard Rock Café International, and Progressive Specialty Glass (“Defendants”) manufactured, distributed, and/or sold glassware products that contain lead, cadmium, and/or lead compounds in the State of California without providing the requisite health hazard warnings. The products covered in this case are defined in Section 1.4 and include, but are not limited to, the products identified in Exhibit A.  

As part of the settlement, after February 15, 2005, Progressive Specialty Glass (“Progressive”)  and Hard Rock Café shall not ship or cause to be shipped any covered product containing lead, cadmium, and/or lead compounds to any person or entity in California, unless the covered product bears Proposition 65 warnings in accordance with Section 2.2 of the Consent Judgment, is otherwise exempt pursuant to Section 2.1(b), or unless the covered products meet minimal safe levels for cadmium and lead. Progressive commits that as a continuing matter of corporate policy, it will undertake good faith efforts, taking into consideration Progressive’s operational and product licensing restrictions, to ensure that as many covered products meet minimal safe levels for cadmium and lead. Progressive will undertake good faith efforts to ensure that as many existing designs of products manufactured after February 15, 2005, will meet minimal safe levels for cadmium and lead, with the firm commitment that 90% of its covered products will meet minimal safe levels for cadmium and lead. Progressive will undertake good faith efforts to convert all remaining existing covered products to meet minimal safe levels for cadmium and lead by July 15, 2005.

The Consent Judgment requires settlement payments of $119,000, divided therein between civil penalties, 75% of which are paid to California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and compensation to whistleblower Brimer and his counsel for their successful enforcement of this matter in the public interest.