The Chanler Group

Dr. Anthony Held, Russell Brimer, and John Moore, clients of The Chanler Group--whom previously filed a lawsuit against the California Attorney General (AG) challenging the validity of the AG's regulation (11 CCR sec. 3003) requiring citizen enforcers to file a motion to approve a Proposition 65 settlement at least 45 days before the hearing on the motion, rather than 16 court days before the hearing as allowed by Code of Civil Procedure sec.1005(b) --today filed an opposition brief to the AG's motion for judgment on the pleadings, which seeks dismissal of the case.  The AG's regulation clearly conflicts with the state statute.  In their opposition brief, Held, Brimer, and Moore argue that by adopting the 45-day regulation, the Attorney General’s Office has unconstitutionally arrogated to itself a legislative function of determining the amount of notice required for filing a motion to approve a Proposition 65 settlement and is thereby clearly interfering with the Legislature’s enactment of Code of Civil Procedure sec.1005(b), which had determined that 16-court days was a "reasonable balance"  between the court's need for time to review motions and litigants' desire to have their motions heard in a timely manner.

Held, Brimer, and Moore argue that: "The State’s ongoing budget crisis has adversely affected both the judicial and executive branches of state government.  Courts and clerks’ offices are short on staff and impaired in their ability to expeditiously process court filings and motions, which when added to the challenged 45-day notice period for motions to approve Proposition 65 settlements, creates further delay to the approval of settlements that are in the public interest.  This delay, in turn, postpones the collection of millions of dollars in civil penalties payable to the State of California and extends injunctive relief deadlines—which most often require defendants to reformulate their products to virtually eliminate the presence of chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm—that are often tied to the date of court approval."

The Chanler Group represents citizen enforcers who, acting in the public interest, commence actions against businesses offering products for sale in California that contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm without first providing the health hazard warning required by Proposition 65. Citizen enforcers bringing Proposition 65 actions in the public interest may obtain a Court Judgment imposing civil penalties, an injunction requiring reformulation of products, and/or provision of health hazard warnings. The Chanler Group has represented citizen enforcers of Proposition 65 for more than twenty years.

Read Held, Brimer, and Moore's Opposition Brief Below.

Excerpted from the full article at the Environmental Leader:

Law firm the Chanler Group has filed Proposition 65 civil complaints in the Superior Court of California against spice and flavoring manufacturer McCormick & Company, coffee and flavoring manufacturer Farmer Bros., and Adams Extract & Spice, LLC. The complaints charge the three defendants with distributing food extracts, flavors and colorings containing unacceptable levels of the carcinogenic chemical 4-Methylimidazole, or 4-MEI, without a proper consumer warning label.  link to source

Excerpted from the full article at FoodBev.com:

The Chanler Group, a US environmental law firm, has filed Proposition 65 civil complaints against three prominent US food suppliers.

Spice and flavouring manufacturer McCormick & Company, coffee and flavouring manufacturer Farmer Bros and Adams Extract & Spice.

The complaints charge the three defendants with distributing food extracts, flavours and colourings containing unacceptable levels of the carcinogenic chemical 4-MEI, or 4-Methylimidazole, without a proper consumer warning label.

The Chanler Group had previously issued 60-day notices of violation, urging the manufacturers to comply with California's Proposition 65 requirements. The state law calls for manufacturers and retailers to label products containing known carcinogenic toxins with a warning to inform consumers prior to exposure.  link to source

Fluor Corp. has agreed to pay a $1.1 million settlement to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act when it allegedly used federal money to pay lobbyists, the U.S. Department of Justice announced today.

Fluor Hanford operated the Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) training center for the Department of Energy from 2005 to 2009.  In 2005, HAMMER allegedly used federal money to hire two firms to lobby members of Congress and federal agencies for more money.  According to the terms of Fluor’s contract with the Department of Energy, federal money was intended for training first responders and law enforcement personnel to respond to crisis situations, not to lobby Congress for more funding.

Loydene Rambo, a former contracting official for HAMMER, filed the initial lawsuit against Fluor under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act.  The qui tam provisions allow a private citizen with knowledge of fraud to sue on behalf of the government and share in the recovery.  Rambo will receive $200,000 as her share of the settlement with Fluor.

Fluor released a statement on April 1st in which they denied any wrongdoing.

The Chanler Group, in association with the Hirst Law Group, represents whistleblowers who take action under the False Claims Act to report fraud committed against the federal and state governments.  We have years of experience representing whistleblower clients who expose every kind of fraud against the government, including health care fraud, contract fraud, and tax fraud.  Read more about our expertise in False Claims Act cases and how you can take action.