DiPirro v. Dolphin Tackle

Posted: 07/24/2000  browse the case archive

On July 24, 2000, Dolphin Tackle (“Dolphin”) elected to opt-into into a Consent Judgment to resolve citizen enforcer Michael DiPirro’s allegations that Dolphin and seventy-eight other defendants manufactured, distributed, or sold fishing tackle products containing the heavy metal lead in the State of California without providing the requisite Proposition 65 health hazard warnings.  The San Francisco County Superior Court entered a Consent Judgment in DiPirro v. Western-Hoegee Company on August 30, 2000.  Subsequently, on April 6, 2001, the San Francisco Superior Court entered a Supplemental Consent Judgment resolving DiPirro’s allegations that fifteen additional defendants sold fishing tackle containing lead in California also without the requisite health hazard warnings.

As part of the original Consent Judgment, Dolphin agreed not to knowingly ship any fishing tackle products for sale in California after November 1, 2000, unless the products have Proposition 65 warnings provided in conformity with those described in Section 2.2 of the Consent Judgment. Should the defendants eliminate the sale of uncoated lead terminal tackle to people under the age of sixteen and no longer sell other products in California, thereby implementing a lead reduction policy to reduce lead exposure in California from fishing tackle, DiPirro agreed to waive a portion of the civil fine that would otherwise be applied.

The Settlement Agreements require collective settlement payments of $1,281,975 from all the defendants, divided therein between civil penalties, 75% of which are paid to California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and compensation to whistleblower DiPirro and his counsel for their successful enforcement of this matter in the public interest.  


Download PDF

It appears your Web browser is not configured to display PDF files. No worries, just click here to download the PDF file.