To: Alameda County Superior Court Civil Fax Page 2 of 9 2020-07-29 17:00:58 (GMT)
`
`16193930154 From: Samantha Dice
`
`2
`
`3
`
`.l NICHOLAS & ’J‘OMAS EVIC, LL]?
`Craig M. Nicholas (SBN 178444)
`Jake W. Sciiulze (SBN 293777)
`225 Broadway, Suite 1900
`San Diego, Califomia 9210i
`"ii—:1: (619) 3251-0492
`Email: cnicholasfigiynicholaslaworg
`Email: jschulte@nichelaslaw.org
`
`4
`
`5
`
`FILED BY FAX
`ALAMEDA COUNTY
`July 29, 2020
`CLERK OF
`THE SUPERIOR COURT
`By Cheryl Clark, Deputy
`CASE NUMBER.
`'
`RG20069431
`
`
`
`
`CLICK LAW GROLP, PC
`Noam Glick (SBN 25'! 582)
`225 Broadway, Sum: 2100
`San Diego, California 92101
`Tel: (6”) 3826400
`Fax: (6W) 393~0l54
`Email: noam®glicklawgroupcom
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`10 Environmental Health Advocates, Inc,
`
`l
`
`.|
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`la
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CAIJFORNIA
`
`TN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
`
`ENVIRONMENTAL 'l"i"EA'L'I"I”l A'DVOCNI'ES, Case No;
`WC, a Califbl‘nia organization,
`
`COMPLAINI.~ FOR CIVIL PENAL’I'EES
`
`y,
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`(l-lealth & Safety Code § 252496 et seq.)
`
`l6 KRAFT HEINZ FOGDS COMPANY, a
`Pennsylvama corporation, RALPI-ES
`l7 GROCERY COMI‘ANY, am thi) corporation,
`DOES l i'hmugh 100, inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINF
`
`

`

`To: Alameda County Superior Court Civil Fax Page 3 of 9 2020-07-29 17:00:58 (GMT)
`
`16193930154 From: Samantha Dice
`
`L
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This Complaint is a representative action brought by Enviionrnental Heatth Advocates,
`
`inc. ("Piaintifi") in the puhiic interest of the citizens of the State of California (“the People"). Plaintiff
`
`seeks to remedy Defendants" taiiure to inform the People of exposure to acryiamide a known
`
`carcinogen. Defendants expose consumers to acrylainide by manufacturing, importing, selling, andtor
`
`distributing Kraft ir-Ieinz i-“oods Company Corn Nuts Chiie Picante Con Limon and Corn Nuts Original
`
`(“Products"). Defendants know and intend that customers will ingest Products containing acryiainidc.
`
`2.
`
`Under Califomia’ s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, California
`
`business shall lcnowingiy and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical. known. to the state to
`
`cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving cheat and reasonabie watning to such
`
`individual. .
`
`.
`
`(llealth & Safety Code: § 25249.6.)
`
`3.
`
`California identified and listed acrylatnide as a chemical known to cause cancer as eariy
`
`as .ianuary In 'E 990, and as a chemical "known to cause developmentaifreproductive toxicity in Fcb'raaiy
`
`of2011.
`
`4.
`
`ii..f)efendants failed to sufficientiy warn consumers and individuals in California about
`
`potential exposure to acryian'iide in connection with Defendants manufacture,
`
`import, sale, or
`
`distribution of Products. This is a violation of Proposition {55.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff seeks injunctivc rciici‘compelliog Defendants to sufficiently warn consumers
`
`in Caiifomia before exposing them to acrylamide in Products, (Health 85 Safety Code, § 25249.7(a).)
`
`Plaintiff also seeks civil penalties against Defendants for their violations of Proposition 65 along with
`
`attorneys fees and costs. (l-iealth & Safety Code, § 25249.7('b:).)
`
`11.
`PARTIES
`W
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH novocn'i‘es ENC.
`
`(“Plaintiff”) is an
`
`organization in the State of Caiifornia dedicated to protecting the health of California citizens through
`
`the elimination or reduction of toxic exposure from consumer products, it brings this action in the 'pubiic
`
`
`
`9 Health and Safety Code, section 25249.6 et seq. {_“Prr‘3‘pt')sitii)'n 65”), “[njo person in the course of doing
`
`1-
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`5
`
`7
`
`3
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`lb
`
`16'
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`2i
`
`3-32
`
`33
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`37
`
`
`
`28
`
`interest pursuant to Health and Safety Code, section 25249.7.
`
` 2
`
`COb-IPLAIN’E
`
`

`

`To: Alameda County Superior Court Civil Fax Page 4 of 9 2020-07-29 17:00:58 (GMT)
`
`16193930154 From: Samantha Dice
`
`l.
`
`Ex.)
`
`7.
`
`.Defendant KRAFT .HlitNZ FOODS Ct.)Mi?At\lY (“Kraft Heine”) is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the fans of Pennsylvania. Kraft Heinz is registered to do business in
`
`3 California and does business in the County ol'Alanieda, within the meaning of Heaith and. Safety Code,
`
`4
`
`section 25249.1 1 . Kraft Heinz manufactures: imports: sells? or distributes the Products in California and
`
`5 Alameda County.
`
`5
`
`7
`
`3
`
`8.
`
`Defer-admit RAL.Pi---iS GROCERY COMPANY (“Ralphs”) is a corporation organized
`
`and exrsiing under the laws of Ohio. Rainhs is registered to do business in California, and does business
`
`in the County of Aiarneda within the meaning of Health and Safety Code? section 25249.11. Raiphs
`
`9 manufactures. imports, sells, or distributes the "Products in California and Alameda County.
`
`
`
`
`
`it)
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`‘5
`16
`
`l7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`N
`
`2?.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff does not know the true names and/or capacitiesa whether individuat. partners,
`
`or corporate, of the defendants sued herein as DOES 21 through. 1.00. inciusive, and for that reason sees
`
`said defendants under fictitious names. Plaintiff wiil seek leave to amend this Cornpiaint when the true
`
`names and capacities of these defendants have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
`
`thereon alleges that these defendants are responsible in whole or in part for Plaintiff? alleged damages.
`
`In.
`VENUE AND JURISDICTION
`
`l0.
`
`California Constitution Article Vi. Section it) grants the Superior Court original
`
`jurisdiction in aii cases except ihosc given by statute to other trial courts. The Heatth and Safety Code
`
`staiutc upon which this action is based does not give jurisdiction to any other court. As such, this Court
`
`has jurisdiction.
`
`H.
`
`Venue is proper in Aiameda County Superior Court pursuant
`
`to Code of Civil
`
`Procedure. sections 394, 395, and 395.5. Wrongful conduct occurred and. continues to occur in this
`
`12.
`
`Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts in the State of California or otherwise
`
`pu‘rpmefuliy avails itself of the California market. Exercising jurisdiction over Defendants wouid he
`
`consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantiatinstice.
`
`COR-il’t .A..[I\7'E
`
`33 County. Defendants conducted and continue to conduct business in this County as it relates to Products.
`
`

`

`To: Alameda County Superior Court Civil Fax Page 5 of 9 2020-07-29 17:00:58 (GMT)
`
`16193930154 From: Samantha Dice
`
`CAUSES 3i ACTION
`
`FIRST CAUSE or ACTION
`(Violation of Proposition 65 — Against aii Defendants)
`
`13.
`14.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained. above.
`Proposition 65 mandates that citizens he informed about exposures to chemicals that
`
`
`
`1-
`
`3
`3
`
`4
`I”
`
`
`
`cause cancer, birth defects. and other reproductive harm.
`2
`1:3.
`Defendants manufactured.
`imported, sold, andr’or distributed Products containing
`7
`acryiamide in violation ot‘iiealth and Safety Code section 25249.6 et seq. Plaintiff is informed and
`8
`believes such. violations have continued after receipt of the Notice (defined. infra) and wiit continue to
`9
`occur into the future.
`10
`16.
`in manufacturing, importing, selling, and/or distributing Products? Defendants failed to
`i1
`provide a clear and reasonable warning to consumers and individuals in California who may be exposed
`12
`to acrylainide through reasonably foreseeable use of the Products.
`13
`17.
`Products expose individuals to acrylainide through direct ingestion. This exposure is a
`it
`natural and foreseeebie consequence of Defendants placing Products into the stream of commerce. As
`‘
`..
`such, Defendants intend that consumers Wili ingest Products. exposing thern to acrylnrnide.
`1:
`18.
`Dcl‘iendants knew or should have known. that the Products contained acrylamide and
`i7
`exposed individuals to acrylarnidc in the ways provided above. The Notice informed Dctcndants ofthc
`18
`presence of acrylamide in the Products. Likewise, media coverage concerning acrylainide and related
`'19
`chemicals in consumer products provided constructive notice to Defendants.
`20
`19.
`Defendants” action in this regard were deliberate and not accidental.
`q]
`20.
`More than sixty days prior to naming each defendant in this iawsuit, Plaintiff issued a
`:fl)
`60-Day Notice ot‘Violation (“Notice”) as required by and in compliance with Proposition 65. Plaintiff
`:;
`;4 provided the Notice to the various required public enforcement agencies alongwith acertificate ofmerit.
`2 ,
`The Notice alleged that Defendants violated Proposition 65 by failing to sufficiently warn consumers in
`9: California ofthe health hazards associated with exposures to acrylaniide contained in the Products.
`:7
`2].
`The appropriate public enforcement agencies provided with the Notice failed to
`:8
`continence and diligentiy prosecute a cause ofaction against Defendants.
`
`4
`COMPI. .AIN’F
`
`

`

`To: Alameda County Superior Court Civil Fax Page 6 of 9 2020-07-29 17:00:58 (GMT)
`
`16193930154 From: Samantha Dice
`
`
`
`12 warning as required by Proposition 65 and related Regulations;
`
`l.
`
`Ex.)
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`5
`
`7
`
`3
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`13
`
`l4
`
`l3
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2 l
`
`
`
`22.
`
`individuals exposed to aerylamide contained in Prwucts through direct
`
`ingestien
`
`resulting from reasonabiy foreseeable use of the Products have sull'ered and continue to suffer
`
`irreparable harm. There is no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law.
`
`23.
`
`Defendants are liable for a maximum civil penalty of $2,500 per day fer each Violation
`
`of Proposition 65 pursuant to Health and Safety Code, section 252497ib). injunctive relief is also
`
`appropriate pursuant to Health and Safety Code, section 25249.7(a).
`
`PRAYER FOR RELLEF
`
`Wherefore, Plainnffprays for judgment against Defendants and each ol‘tnerna as follows:
`
`1.
`
`3.
`
`Civil penalties in the amount ui‘“$22500 per day for eaeh Véoiation;
`
`A preliminary and pennanent
`
`injunction against
`
`l.i)efendants from manufacturing
`
`importing. selling, and/or distributing Products in California Without providing a clear and reasonable
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and
`
`Such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`{)ated: July 29:. 2020
`
`CLICK LAW GROUP, PC
`
`--
`
`l
`
`*
`Noam Glick
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`By;
`
`5
`COMPI. .A..[I\"E
`
`