The Chanler Group

Brian Johnson, an attorney for The Chanler Group, shredded guitar at the first annual Law Rocks! San Francisco on June 13, a “battle of the bands” style rock concert in which five groups of legal professionals fought it out on stage to raise nearly $23,000 for five local charities.

Five TCG employees also turned out to support their colleague, donate to charity, and enjoy the festivities at The Independent, a live music venue in San Francisco’s trendy NoPa (North of the Panhandle) neighborhood.  (From left: Kyle Ludowitz, John Mayo, Michelle Ma, Brian Johnson, Cynthia Price)

“We’re really glad to be able to raise funds for charity and perform for our friends, colleagues and peers,” Johnson said.

Johnson’s band, Generator, raised $2,261 for the San Francisco Education Fund and came in third place overall.  The San Francisco Education Fund provides resources for underprivileged students and their teachers in the city’s public schools, utilizing more than 800 volunteers.

Generator includes attorney James Napoli of Hanson Bridgett LLP on keyboards and vocals; John Cesario, a music industry professional, and Jeff Herrera, a library employee at Hastings College of the Law on drums.  They have been performing classic rock together for five years throughout California, at venues such as health care facilities, senior homes, conventions, and charity events, and have recorded a CD.  They recently put on a show for patients at San Francisco’s Laguna Honda Hospital.

Law Rocks! was founded in 2009 and has held a number of similar fundraisers in London and Los Angeles.  Future events are planned for Chicago, Boston, New York and Seattle.

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.

Photo Credit: Alonso Cruz

Members of the staff of California Governor Edmund G. (“Jerry”) Brown, Jr. today hosted the third in a series of meetings with stakeholders to discuss the Governor’s proposed reforms to Proposition 65.  The topic for today’s meeting was revising the lawsuit provisions of Proposition 65, which are codified in California Health and Safety Code section 25249.7.  The stakeholders include state agencies, such as the California Attorney General’s Office; California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment; attorneys—including The Chanler Group—that represent citizen enforcers in Proposition 65 actions brought in the public interest; non-profit and environmental groups that are often named plaintiffs in Proposition 65 actions; and others. 

A draft of proposed revisions to Proposition 65 regarding actions brought by citizen enforcers was distributed prior to the meeting.  A copy of the Governor’s draft is posted below, and the proposed revisions appear as underlined text.  Among the proposed revisions discussed were:

• A requirement that citizen enforcers provide test data in support of their certificates  of merit to the Attorney General
• If exposure to a chemical through contact with the skin (dermal contact) is alleged, the citizen enforcer must make a showing that the chemical is likely to come off the product on contact
• A requirement that citizen enforcers seeking an award of attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (the private attorney general law) show that the award is reasonable by specifically discussing a number of factors, including the novelty of the alleged violation, the amount of attorney’s fees the plaintiff’s attorney has received during the past four years from settlements involving the same chemicals; the amount of, and reason for, litigation occurring after the alleged violator corrected the violation
• Limiting the amount of any payment to an organization in lieu of civil penalties so that it does not exceed the penalty amount and requiring that the settlement describe a substantial connection between the activities funded and the violation
• A requirement that citizen enforcers provide their test data to alleged violators if the alleged violators tender their test data and other information to the citizen enforcer

Additional meetings for the stakeholders are planned.

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.

Whitney Leeman and Laurence Vinocur--clients of The Chanler Group--served ten 60-Day Notices of Proposition 65 Violation today.  The notices were served to companies offering products such as furniture, greeting cards, medical instrument cases, and hand tools for sale in California containing chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm, without the required health hazard warning.  TCG's citizen enforcers allege that the companies' products contain the phthalate DEHP, the flame retardant chemical TDCPP, and the heavy metal lead (Pb).  DEHP and lead are known to cause birth defects and reproductive harm, while TDCPP is known to cause cancer.  Some of the noticed companies include American Greetings Corporation, Bayco, and Poolmaster.  See below for a partial list of notices.

Read the most recent notices issued by clients of The Chanler Group

Earlier this month, Environmental Health Perspectives, a National Institutes of Health journal, reported on two studies showing that exposure to the carcinogenic flame retardant TDCPP, commonly referred to as chlorinated tris, may be widespread.

TDCPP is a flame retardant widely used in polyurethane foam padding in furniture and automobiles.  A recent survey found that TDCPP was present in many U.S. couches, and it was the most frequent flame retardant found in a survey of 101 foam padded infant and children products, such as car seats, strollers, changing table pads, nursing pillows, portable crib mattresses, and infant sleep positioners.  Because there is nothing keeping TDCPP contained within the foam, the chemical escapes easily into its surrounding environment and often ends up in household dust, which is then inhaled or ingested.  Small children are especially at risk of exposure because they are close to the floor and often place their fingers or objects in their mouths, and are therefore at higher risk of cancer.

Recent animal studies have suggested that TDCPP is neurotoxic, an endocrine disruptor, and a reproductive toxicant.  California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has designated it as a chemical known to the State to cause cancer, and The Chanler Group’s clients have filed complaints against several furniture manufacturers and retailers for failure to provide the required health hazard warning with their products.

One recent study conducted by Boston University researchers and published in Environment International found that TDCPP markers were present in the urine of all the participants in the study, all of whom worked in office environments.  Another study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, found that most of the participants had TDCPP markers in their urine as well.  These findings indicate that TDCPP exposure may be quite widespread in the U.S. population.

Despite recent industry action to end the production and usage of TDCPP in foam padded furniture, older furniture pieces that still contain TDCPP continue to release the chemicals into indoor dust; even if older furniture pieces are disposed of, the TDCPP already released into the dust remains, perhaps for years, and users continue to be exposed to its carcinogenic effects.  Individuals and parents concerned about exposure to TDCPP should wash their hands and their children’s hands frequently.

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.

Excerpted from full article at Prop 65 Clearinghouse:

A Sacramento Superior Court judge has granted the Attorney General's request to dismiss a complaint by three clients of The Chanler Group arguing that the AG's regulation requiring Proposition 65 private plaintiffs to serve the AG with a proposed settlement at least 45 days prior to the motion to approve the settlement violates the state Constitution. The decision, in Held v. Harris, by Judge David Brown dismisses the action brought by plaintiffs Anthony Held, Russell Brimer, and John Moore on a motion on the pleadings brought by the AG's office. All three of these plaintiffs are long-time clients of The Chanler Group formed by long-time Prop. 65 attorney Clifford Chanler.

In 2001 one of the few successful amendments of Prop. 65 required that private enforcers give the Attorney General's office a chance to review any proposed settlement of a Prop. 65 action prior to judicial approval. In 2003 the AG adopted a regulation implementing the new requirement specifying that any motion to approve a settlement must be served on the AG's office at least 45 days prior to the hearing date on the motion unless court rules or applicable orders do not permit a 45 day notice [11 California Code of Regulations, section 3003]. The Chanler plaintiffs brought this action alleging that section 3003 improperly conflicts with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), which provides that a party must give written notice of a hearing at least 16 court days before the hearing. The plaintiffs also argued that even if the court finds no conflict between the regulation and the statute, the AG violated the Constitution's Separation-of-Powers doctrine by taking an action reserved to the Legislature (i.e., specifying time limits for litigation notices).  link to source