- Our Firm
- Practice Areas
- Whistleblower Cases
- News & Blogs
- Contact Us
DiPirro v. Western-Hoegee Company, et al.
Posted: 04/06/2001 browse the case archive
The San Francisco County Superior Court entered a Consent Judgment on August 30, 2000, resolving citizen enforcer Michael DiPirro’s allegations that Western-Hoegee and 78 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. Subsequently, on April 6, 2001, the San Francisco Superior Court entered a Supplemental Consent Judgment resolving DiPirro’s allegations that 15 additional defendants sold fishing tackle containing lead in California also without the requisite health hazard warnings.
As part of the original Consent Judgment, the defendants 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. The Supplemental Consent Judgment prohibits the defendants from selling any fishing tackle products in California after May 1, 2001, unless the same Proposition 65 warnings are provided. 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 settlement payments of $1,281,975, 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.