DiPirro v. Crain Cutter Co., Inc., et al.

Citizen enforcer Michael DiPirro and settling defendant Crain Cutter Co., Inc. executed a Consent Judgment on December 21, 2001, subsequently approved by the Superior Court of California County of Alameda, which resolved DiPirro's allegations that Crain sold one or more of the products identified in the agreement whose customary use and application are likely to produce fumes, gases or dust which contain one or more chemicals listed pursuant to Proposition 65, specifically lead and/or lead compounds, crystalline silica, arsenic and/or chromium (hexavalent compounds) in the State of California without providing the requisite health hazard warnings.

As part of the settlement, Crain agreed that as of January 1, 2002, it would not knowingly sell or distribute in the State of California any power tools unless the tools were accompanied by the appropriate Proposition 65 health hazard warning in compliance with subsection 2.3 of the agreement.

The Consent Judgment required settlement payments of $23,500, divided therein between civil penalties, 75% of which are paid to California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and the remainder as compensation to whistleblower DiPirro and his counsel for their successful enforcement of this matter in the public interest.