Leeman

I.

INTRODUCTION

This appeal arises from a private enforcement action filed by appellant Whitney R. Leeman, Ph.D. (Leeman), pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 25249.5 et seq., known as Proposition 65. The complaint alleged that respondent Adams Extract & Spice, LLC (Adams), was in violation of the provisions of Proposition 65 by failing to issue an adequate warning that its product contained a chemical identified on the Governor’s list “of those chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity . . . .” (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.8, subd. (a).) In addition to other remedies, Proposition 65 provides that if the plaintiff is successful in bringing an action, he or she is entitled to recover attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. (Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 560-561 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 , 101 P.3d 140 ].)

The parties ultimately settled their dispute shortly before trial. The settlement included a stipulated award of $72,500 for attorney fees and costs incurred by Leeman relating to the investigation, litigation and settlement of the case.

In confirming the settlement, the court modified the…