California Court of Appeal

In the context of secondhand smoke litigation and alleged violations of Proposition 65, to stamp a consent agreement with the judicial imprimatur, a trial court must determine that a proposed settlement is just and is required to consider the public interest when it evaluates a proposed consent judgment brought by a private plaintiff who is suing on behalf of the public interest.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/06/2006
• Published 07/06/2006

Judges

• COOPER, P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Yeroushalmi & Associates, Daniel D. Cho, Reuben Yeroushalmi, Los Angeles, and Daniel J. Hartman for Plaintiff and Appellant Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc., Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Tom Greene, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Theodora P. Berger, Assistant Attorney General and Edward G. Weil, Deputy Attorney General, for County as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants., Graham & Martin, Anthony G. Graham, Michael J. Martin, Irvine, for Plaintiffs and Appellants Consumer Defense Group and the McKenzie Group.


• For Appellees:
  
• Weston BenshoofRochefort Rubalcava MacCuish, Kurt Weissmuller and Stephanie A. Jones, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents Hotel Sofitel, Accor North America and Kintetsu Enterprises Company of America., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Scott A. Kruse, Patrick W. Dennis, Los Angeles, and Stephanie A. Hartley for Defendants and Respondents Wyndham International, Inc. and Patriot American Hospitality, Inc., Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, Jeffrey K. Riffer, Malcolm C. Weiss and David P. Waite, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent California Hotel and Lodging Association Members.