Litigation

Cal Supremes Deny Hearing On Private Bounty Hunter Declaratory Relief Decision

By Bruce Nye

In December, as CBL covered here, California's Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that a company that receives a sixty day notice under Proposition 65 can bring a declaratory relief action against the private party enforcer / bounty hunter (in this case, Dr. Whitney Leeman) seeking a declaration that it isn't violating the statute before the bounty hunter files an enforcement action.  American Meat Institute v. Leeman (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 728.  The Cal Supremes have now denied a hearing.  This means the decision of the Court of Appeal is final and binding on all trial courts in California.

The case presents a pretty interesting tactical angle.  The vast majority of bounty hunter cases seem to be filed in San Francisco, Alameda or Los Angeles counties.  The San Francisco and Alameda County benches have taken a rather favorable view of Proposition 65 actions, as has Court of Appeal District 1, where cases from these counties go on appeal.

But a Declaratory Relief action can be venued wherever the defendant resides, and many of the private party enforcer/bounty hunters reside in fairly remote locations.  So if a company plans to contest a Proposition 65 case, and wants a venue more favorable than the typical urban courts, why shouldn't it consider a declaratory judgment action against the bounty hunter where the latter lives?

Full post as published by CalBizLit on April 16, 2010 (boomark / email).