1999

"This bill would require any person bringing an action in the public interest to notify the Attorney General that such an action has been filed, and would require such a person, after the action is either subject to a settlement or a judgment, to submit to the Attorney General a reporting form that includes the results of that settlement or judgment and the final disposition of the case. The bill would also require a person bringing an action in the public interest to submit to the Attorney General a report that includes information on any corrective action being taken as a part of the settlement or resolution of the case. The bill would require the Attorney General to develop a reporting form, for purposes of these requirements, that specifies the information to be reported, including the date the action was filed, the nature of the relief sought, the amount of the settlement or civil penalty assessed, and any other information the Attorney General deems appropriate.

The bill would require the Attorney General to maintain a record of that information and to make this information available to the public."

View the full text of the amendment.

Prepared Testimony:

PANEL I

Marianne LaMura, East Hanover, New Jersey
Chemcoat Labs, Inc.

Robert Klein, Baltimore, Maryland
Lenmar, Inc.

Mark Golden, New Berlin, New York
Golden Artists Colors

Frank Strauss, Marshall, Texas
Activa Products, Inc.

Sandra Skommesa, Los Angeles, California
Ellis Paint Company

PANEL II

Ann Brown, Chairwoman
Consumer Product Safety Commission

Ed Weil, Esq., Oakland, California
California Deputy Attorney General

Shawn Khorrami, Esq. Van Nuys, California
Attorney
Law Offices of Shawn Khorrami

Jeffrey Margulies, Esq., Santa Monica, California
Attorney [Word .doc file]
Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, L.L.P.

SUBMITTED TESTIMONY

Kamran Ghalchi , Esq, Los Angeles, California
Attorney,
Mehrban, Ghalchi & Yeroushalmi

Transcript:

Official Hearing Transcript (Not Yet Available)

Additional Materials:

Press Release:  Committee on Small Business Hears Concerns on the Effects of Proposition 65 on America's Small Business

---

Uniform Diesel Warnings Bill Mutates to Reporting Statute.

SB 1269 introduced February 26, 1999, by Senator Alpert, originally "would authorize the lead agency, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board, to adopt specific regulations that provide a uniform, statewide warning requirement for environmental exposures to diesel engine exhaust, and would require those regulations to include criteria for determining which facilities are subject to the act's warning requirements for environmental exposures to diesel exhaust and the methods those facilities may use to comply with those requirements."

When the bill came to a vote on the floor of the Senate on June 2, however, it was amended to remove all references to diesel exhaust, and now requires reporting of all settlements and judgments in Prop 65 litigation to the Attorney General.  The AG is required to maintain records of all settlements and judgments, and to make them publicly available.  The bill passed the Senate by a 35-1 vote.  It passed the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials on July 13, and has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

SB 1269 documents:

• Status: Status, SB 1269, as of 1999-07-14 -- (text)
• History: History, SB 1269, as of 1999-07-01 -- (text)
• Current: SB 1269, Current Amended 1999-06-30 [9.0KB] -- (text)
• Introduced: SB 1269, Introduced 1999-02-26 [4.5KB] -- (text)
• Analysis, SB 1269, Asm. Env.Sfty. & Toxic Mtls. committee as of 1999-06-30 [9.0KB]
  

Preemption Bill Stalls in Committee

On February 25, 1999, Senator Monteith introduced SB 806, which would apparently fine-tune the preemption provision of Prop 65. Although the bill is entitled Diesel fuel: warning, its sole provision would add new subdivision (d) to Health & Safety Code section 25249.10, which would provide the following exemption from Prop 65's warning requirement:

"(d) An exposure for which a federal law preempts the state's authority to require a warning in the manner otherwise required by this chapter."

The bill was apparently introduced as a placeholder for other legislation, which was never introduced.  At the author's request, the April 12 hearing in the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality was canceled.

SB 806 documents:

• Status: Status, SB 806, as of 1999-04-21 -- (text)
• History: History, SB 806, as of 1999-04-21 -- (text)
• Current: SB 806, Introduced 1999-02-25 [4.5KB] -- (text)
• Introduced: SB 806, Introduced 1999-02-25 [4.5KB] -- (text)
  

Oral Warning Bill Stalls in Committee

SB 957, introduced on February 25, 1999, by Senator McPherson, "would allow a warning to be provided by an oral presentation, before exposure to the individual if the presentation of the warning is memorialized, in writing, within a reasonable period of time after the exposure." (From the Legislative Counsel's Digest.) The bill would add this provision by amending Health & Safety Codesection 25249.11 to add new subdivision (f)(1).

As was the case with SB 806, the April 6, 1999, hearing in the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality was canceled.

SB 957 documents:

• Status: Status, SB 957, as of 1999-04-21 -- (text)
• History: History, SB 957, as of 1999-04-21 -- (text)
• Current: SB 957, Introduced 1999-02-25 [9.0KB] -- (text)
• Introduced: SB 957, Introduced 1999-02-25 [9.0KB] -- (text)
  

Unfair Competition Restrictions Fails Passage in Senate Committee

SB 593, introduced by Senator Morrow on February 23, 199, would have impose restrictions on the use of the unfair competition law to sue for unlawful, unfair, or deceptive business practices "in the public interest." Both public and private prosecutors often invoke the unfair competition law, Business & Professions Codesection 17200, in tandem with Prop 65's enforcement provision, since the UCL has a longer statute of limitations, allows for "restitution," and does not require a 60-day as a condition of bringing a public enforcement action. According to the Legislative Counsel's Digest, the bill would:

"(1) Require a person bringing an action under these provisions solely on his or her own behalf to have been harmed or threatened with some harm by the unlawful acts or practices.

(2) Require a person acting for the interests of its members to prove that some or all of the members were harmed or threatened with some harm, and if restitution is sought, require the person to comply with certain provisions governing class actions.

(3) Require a private person who brings an action under these provisions on behalf of the general public to have been harmed or threatened with some harm, be an adequate representative of the interests of the general public, have an attorney who will adequately represent the interests of the general public, and have claims or defenses typical of the claims or defenses of the general public, as determined by the court.

(4) Require court approval following a hearing in order for an action brought under (3) to be dismissed or compromised, as specified, and provide that a judgment approved by the court in that regard is conclusive and would bar any further similar representative actions against the same defendant based on substantially similar facts and theories of liability. "

On May 11, SB 593 failed passage in the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 2-4 vote.

SB 593 documents:

• Status: Status, SB 593, as of 1999-05-14 -- (text)
• History: History, SB 593, as of 1999-05-14 -- (text)
• Current: SB 593, Introduced 1999-02-23 [13.5KB] -- (text)
• Introduced: SB 593, Introduced 1999-02-23 [13.5KB] -- (text)
• Analysis, SB 593, Sen. Judiciary committee as of 1999-02-23 [31.5KB]

2002 Legislative Update

2001 Legislative Update

2000 Legislative Update

1999 Legislative Update

1997-98 Legislative Update

1996 Legislative Update