ECOLOGICAL ALLIANCE, LLC VS THE KROGER CO.

On March 7, 2022, Ecological Alliance, LLC ("Plaintiff'), represented by Abiri Robert filed a civil action against The Kroger Co. and Does 1-10, (“Defendants”), seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties and costs of litigation, among other reliefs, for the Defendants’ alleged violation of health and safety code by the Defendants. This case was filed in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, California.

In the complaint the Plaintiff alleged that, “This Complaint is brought in the public interest of the People of the State of California to enforce their right to be informed of the presence of chemicals, including Lead, listed by the State of California pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, codified at Health and Safety Code section 25249.6 et seq. Defendants' products contain Lead and consumers of Products in the State of California are exposed to the Lead through ingestion of the Products.”

The Plaintiffs also alleged that, “Plaintiffs testing found that one serving of Kroger spinach with bacon salad kits exposes a consumer to approximately 70.1 micrograms of Lead, over 140 times greater than the 0.5 micrograms allowed per day for adults by Proposition 65. Plaintiffs testing found that one serving of Simple Truth Organic berry medley exposes a consumer to approximately 8.34 micrograms of Lead, over 16 times greater than the 0.5 micrograms allowed per day for adults by Proposition 65.”

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Plaintiff sent notice of violation letters ("60-Day Notices"), dated June 18, 2021; July 12, 2021; July 13, 2021; and October 25, 2021; to The Kroger Co., and to California's Attorney General. Identical letters were sent to every District Attorney in the state, to the City Attorneys of every California city with a population greater than 750,000, and to all Defendants, Attached to the 60-Day Notices were Certificates of Merit attesting to the reasonable and meritorious basis for this action, Certificates of Service attesting to service of the letters on each entity described above, and a description of Proposition 65 prepared by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Furthermore, factual information sufficient to establish the basis of the Certificates of Merit was enclosed with the 60-Day Notice sent to California's Attorney General. After receiving the claims asserted in the 60-Day Notice, the public enforcement agencies have failed to commence and diligently prosecute a cause of action against Defendants under Proposition 65.”

The only claim for relief laid down by the Plaintiff deals with the alleged violation of Proposition 65. 

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested that the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from manufacturing, distributing, offering for sale, selling, and/or serving in the State of California Products that contain the Listed Chemical 25 without first providing a "clear and reasonable warning" under Proposition 65; assess civil penalties against Defendants in such amount as the Court deems appropriate up to $2,500 per violation, along with reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.