|
February
26, 2002 -- An Alameda County Superior Court judge, in a blow to
Proposition 65 private enforcers, has tentatively ruled that recent
reforms to California's consumer environmental law may apply to
settlements reached before the reforms took effect on January 1.
The February 22 ruling by Judge Yolanda
Northridge is a big victory for the attorney general's office.
But the decision came in a case that has gained notoriety for
another issue entirely--an accusation by private enforcer Michael
DiPirro that the AG's office had faked a key letter and lied to
the court in an attempt to derail a $73,000 settlement involving
Virbac Corporation, a manufacturer of flea and tick collars.
In her ruling, Northridge all but ignored the
allegations by DiPirro's attorney, and said she would deny their
motion to open contempt proceedings against the state's lawyers. She
also declined to approve the Virbac settlement.
In the most important element of her ruling,
Northridge found that reforms spelled out in SB 471, enacted by the
state Legislature last year, apply to all settlements that were not
approved by a court by Dec. 31, 2001. It is "absurd,"
Northridge said in a written ruling, "to subscribe to the
notion that the Legislature desired to postpone application of court
review" of attorneys fees sought in Proposition 65 cases.
DiPirro's attorneys, Clifford
Chanler and Jennifer
Henry, stand to earn $63,000 under the proposed Virbac
settlement. A final ruling is expected by March 1.
By Prop
65 News Special Correspondent Dennis Pfaff
|
