CONSUMER DEFENSE GROUP v.
RENTAL HOUSING INDUSTRY,
Filed 3/24/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| CONSUMER DEFENSE GROUP et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. RENTAL HOUSING INDUSTRY MEMBERS, Defendants and Respondents. | G035101, G035154 (Super. Ct. Nos. 04CC00589 and 04CC00686) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court of Orange County, C. Robert Jameson and Kim G. Dunning, Judges. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Thomas J. Greene, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Theodora Berger, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kathryn W. Egolf and Edward G. Weil, Deputies Attorney General for Objector and Appellant People of the State of California.
Graham & Martin, Anthony G. Graham and Michael J. Martin for Plaintiffs and Respondents Consumer Defense Group and The McKenzie Group.
Jeffer, Mangels Butler & Marmaro, Jeffrey K. Riffer, Malcolm Weiss and David Waite for Rental Housing Industry Members.
* * *
I. INTRODUCTION
A prerequisite for the private enforcement by way of litigation of the warning provisions of Proposition 65 is a 60-day notice from the would-be private enforcer to the alleged violator and to relevant prosecutorial authorities -- particularly the Attorney General's office -- sufficient to give the alleged violator and the appropriate governmental authorities opportunity to both undertake a meaningful investigation and instigate remedial action prior to the filing of litigation. (Yeroushalmi v. Miramar Sheraton (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 738, 740 [â€
