Environmental Health Advocates v. Pancho Villa's - Proposition 65 Notice Requirements

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, has reversed a trial court's judgment that dismissed an enforcement action brought by Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. (EHA) against Pancho Villa's, Inc. under California's Proposition 65. The trial court had dismissed the case, finding EHA's 60-day notice of violation defective because it provided contact information for EHA's counsel instead of a responsible individual within EHA, and because it attached an outdated version of the OEHA summary. The appellate court's decision addresses whether strict compliance with specific procedural steps in the notice regulations is mandatory for maintaining a Proposition 65 action.

This ruling has significant implications for businesses and enforcement entities involved in Proposition 65 litigation. It suggests that minor procedural defects in the notice of violation may not automatically lead to dismissal, potentially allowing more cases to proceed on their merits. Regulated entities should review their compliance procedures for Proposition 65 notices to ensure they meet the requirements, while enforcement advocates may find greater latitude in addressing procedural challenges. The case is remanded with directions, indicating further proceedings will occur in the lower court.