Legal Opinion

Consumer Defense Group v. Rental Housing Industry Members

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 24, 2006No. G035101, G035154PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SILLS, P. 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]…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  2. People v. PietersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2001
  4. Friends of the Earth v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
  5. Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmilecareCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Angelucci v. Century Supper ClubCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Sciortino v. Pepsico, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
  3. Starbucks Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  4. Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu Enterprises of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  5. Angelucci v. Century Supper ClubCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API