Settlement in Diesel Emissions Case
08/13/08

Laidlaw Transit, Inc., the largest operator of school buses in California, has settled with three plaintiff groups (Environmental Law Foundation, Communities for a Better Environment, and Our Children's Earth Foundation) over charges of exposing children who ride school buses to diesel emissions. Over the next five years, Laidlaw has pledged to invest $4.7 million to retrofit buses more than five years old with air pollution control devices, and $23.6 million in the next seven years to retrofit more buses or purchase new buses that meet stricter emissions standards. The settlement also includes a proposed $6.6 million payment to the plaintiffs and their attorneys.

60-Day Notice Report

Recently filed 60-day notices as of August 15, 2008.

Acrylamide Case Settles, Companies Agree to Reductions, Penalties

Dennis Pfaff, Daily Journal Staff Writer

The remaining defendants in the litigation over acrylamide in snack and fast foods have settled, ending the long-running matter with agreements to substantially cut the amount of the cancer-causing chemical found in the products.Companies also agreed to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties and to make other payments that will go toward the attorney general's enforcement of Proposition 65, according to the settlement documents and a statement from Attorney General Jerry Brown on August 1.

Laidlaw Inks Diesel School Bus Deal Worth Nearly $35 Million

Dennis Pfaff, Daily Journal Staff Writer

The largest school bus contractor in the nation has agreed to a massive Proposition 65 settlement that will require it spend an estimated $28 million to clean up its California fleet of diesel school buses. It also requires the company, Laidlaw Transit, Inc., to hand $6.6 million in attorney fees and payments in lieu of penalties to the three plaintiff groups that sued the company in 2006.

Leeman Seeks $1.5 Million in Coke Case Fees

Dennis Pfaff, Daily Journal Staff Writer

Plaintiff Whitney Leeman, whose efforts sparked successful Proposition 65 litigation against Coca-Cola Company and other soft drink manufacturers over lead contamination in Mexican-produced sodas, has asked for more than $1.5 million in attorney fees and costs. The amount includes $65,000 for herself. The July request in People v. Coca-Cola opened the latest round in a long-running fee dispute between Leeman, who has been represented by the veteran Proposition 65 plaintiff's firm of Hirst & Chanler, and other parties in the case. The fee fight had reportedly helped derail earlier efforts to settle the litigation against Coke, according to public statements by the parties and documents filed in court.

Pending Case Log

Recent Complaints

Recently filed Prop. 65 complaints as of August 15, 2008.

Recent Settlements

Recent Prop. 65 settlements as of August 15, 2008.

OEHHA Calendar

Recently Listed Prop. 65 Chemicals

Recently listed Prop. 65 chemicals as of August 15, 2008.

Chemicals Under Consideration For Listing

Chemicals under consideration for Prop. 65 listing as of August 15, 2008.

Ten Things I've Learned About Proposition 65

Ed Weil, Supervising Deputy Attorney General

I'm just going to write about ten things that I think I've learned. Like the blind men and the elephant, a lot depends on your perspective. Many consumers may see Proposition 65 as generic and ubiquitous signs on buildings, jetways, and gas pumps, or as a helpful warning that enables them to avoid a product and its health risk. A small business person sees a sixty-day notice and a fee demand (from a plaintiff's attorney and a defense attorney). A defense lawyer sees unhappy clients, greedy plaintiff's lawyers, but a niche practice area. A plaintiff's lawyer sees products containing toxic chemicals and intransigent businesses, but a niche practice area. People in government agencies see welcome help or unnecessary interference. And like the blind men, they're all partly right and partly wrong. Here are ten things I've learned. I think.