Consumer Defense Group v. Rental Housing Industry Members

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 4th 1185·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 407·2006 Daily Journal DAR 3584·40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 832·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2503
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 2006G035101, G035154California10,307 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

A prerequisite for the private enforcement by way of litigation of the warning provisions of Proposition 65 is a 60-day notice from the would-be private enforcer to the alleged violator and to relevant prosecutorial authorities—particularly the Attorney General’s office—sufficient to give the alleged violator and the appropriate governmental authorities opportunity to both undertake a meaningful investigation and instigate remedial action prior to the filing of litigation. (Yeroushalmi v. Miramar Sheraton (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 738, 740 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 332 ] [“We conclude that the notices sent were insufficient because they failed to state sufficient specific facts to enable the alleged violators and the appropriate governmental agencies to undertake a meaningful investigation and remedy the alleged violations prior to citizen intervention. Thus, the trial court did not err in sustaining demurrers without leave to amend and dismissing the actions.”].)

The present appeal centers on two sets of notices of violation of Proposition 65, each served on literally hundreds of apartment owners and managers.

The first notice was literally predicated on only two…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.