Yeroushalmi

Yeroushalmi v. Miramar Sheraton

Good Law
106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 306·2001 Daily Journal DAR 4049·88 Cal. App. 4th 738·2001 WL 419163
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 25, 2001B132719, B132723, B134924California4,743 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hastings, J.

Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.5 et seq.), provides for citizen enforcement if applicable government agencies fail to undertake enforcement after service of an appropriate notice of violation. Here, appellants sent notices relating to alleged violations by various commercial establishments throughout the state and then filed suit after the applicable governmental agencies failed to take steps to enforce the alleged violations. 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.

Background

We have consolidated three appeals: Nos. B132723, Yeroushalmi v. Westin Bonaventure (Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. BC200353) (Westin); B134924, Consumer Cause, Inc. v. Arco Oil & Gas Co. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. BC196094) (Arco); and B132719, Yeroushalmi v. Miramar Sheraton…

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.