San Fernando Valley Los Angeles Attorneys
Navigation Two
Phone Number
Monday
Nov142016

Half Baked: The Brave New World of Branding Weed

 

Franchise Agreement LawyerIntellectual Property Attorney

by Tal Grinblat

(818) 907-3284

 

In last week’s election, California voters passed Prop 64, which means recreational marijuana can be sold and used by persons over 21 within the state.

Trademark Protections PotBut don’t get excited about the gold rush just yet. Recreational users won’t be able to buy from medical dispensaries without a prescription; and cultivators won’t be able to sell marijuana until they get licensed. Barring the unforeseen, we’re looking at January 2018 for the first legal sales transactions of recreational marijuana.

Still, entrepreneurs are examining the legal concerns related to the recreational marijuana trade now; and some have been setting up for voter approval long before the November 8th vote.

Rapper Snoop Dogg for example, is already running into problems, including an opposition in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board over his application for Leafs by Snoop. He filed the application in November 2015 with the U.S. Trademark and Patent Office (USTPO).

Leafs by Snoop is a company whose intended mark is a 7-pointed green leaf. The mark is intended to be used on cigarette lighters, clothing and hemp products, and is already being used on marijuana products in Colorado.

The company opposing the application is Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment (MLSE), parent company of the National Hockey League’s Toronto Maple Leafs. MLSE filed an opposition in the U.S. Trademark Office on November 7, 2016 claiming there is a risk customers will confuse Snoop’s mark with their own. Below is each company’s trademark for comparison. See: Trademark Trial & Appeal Board Opposition.

California Pot Approval Up in Smoke?

No matter what individual states decide regarding recreational or medical marijuana use, cannabis is still a Schedule I illegal drug in the eyes of the Feds. Since the USPTO is a federal agency, they refuse registering marks that identify illegal products and services. The agency generally assumes an applicant’s use of a mark will be for legal goods and services, unless:

(1) a violation of federal law is indicated by the application record or other evidence, such as when a court or a federal agency responsible for overseeing activity in which the applicant is involved, and which activity is relevant to its application, has issued a finding of noncompliance under the relevant statute or regulation, or

(2) when the applicant's application-identifies goods or services that are a per se violation of a federal law." In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d at 1351; see also Kellogg Co. v. New Generation Foods Inc., 6 USPQ2d 2045, 2047 (TTAB 1988).

So what are the ways companies may obtain trademark rights in marijuana related products?

from MLSE Notice of Opposition

Intellectual Property Protections for Pot Products

Entrepreneurs who want to cash in on cannabis have a few options for now.

1. The best way to protect a brand nationally, is through trademark registration at the USPTO. Though it is currently not possible to trademark product names directly related to marijuana, it is possible to gain approval if you follow the example of the Dogg:

Sell products besides marijuana – parsley, sage, rosemary & thyme, for example, and come up with a catchy name and logo that encompasses everything. While a company would not get protection specifically for marijuana products, it could get protection for tangential legal products it sells.

2. Register the trademark in states where marijuana sales are legal. In California, the Secretary of State’s Trademark Unit handles trademark registrations.

3. Use the mark. To obtain common law trademark rights, a retailer need only use their name, such as through sales in an online store (no, marijuana can’t be sold online, but other products can be), on packaging, and in advertising. No formal registration is required to obtain common law rights. Unfortunately, common law rights are limited, in that trademark rights are only obtained in geographies where the retailer has actually used the mark. 

Accordingly, a cannabis retailer in California may have a difficult time enforcing its trademark rights outside the state, should a retailer in another state decide to use the same or similar branding.

None of these three protection methods are fool-proof. The first is the best method as it provides nationwide rights, but barring that, a combination of options two and three will also afford some protections and are better than nothing. As for Snoop Dogg…we’ll just have to wait for the smoke to clear to see if Leafs by Snoop gets crushed by the opposition.

Tal Grinblat is an Intellectual Property Attorney and Shareholder at our firm. 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Monday
Oct242016

Employer Guide for Election Season

 

by Nicole Kamm & Tal Burnovski Yeyni

 

The 2016 presidential election season has provided fodder for often impassioned conversations among friends, family and co-workers.  While we may not always agree with all points of view, it is important to remember that conduct and discussion tolerated among friends or family may not be suitable in the workplace.

Employers should be mindful of the principal “dos and don’ts” when addressing political speech in the workplace

  • Do not encourage or discipline employees for their political activities.  California law prohibits employers from adopting or enforcing any policy that tends to control or direct employees’ political activities or affiliations. Employers further cannot coerce or influence employees to follow, or refrain from following, any particular line of political activity by threatening a loss of employment. Labor Code §§ 1101-1102.  

  • If heated discussions are an issue, remind employees about what constitutes acceptable conduct in the workplace.  Remind employees that all perspectives are entitled to respect, and that use of derogatory or abusive language will not be tolerated in a workplace setting.   

  • Comply with “time off to vote” rules in California. California law allows employees to take paid time off to vote (up to two hours) if employees do not have sufficient time outside of work hours to do so. Note, employees are allowed to take more than two hours to vote, but only two hours need be paid. 

Generally, time off to vote can be restricted to the beginning or end of an employee’s shift, whichever allows the most free time for voting and the least time off from the regular working shift (unless employee and employer agree otherwise). Finally, if employees know, or have reason to believe that time off to vote will be necessary, they are required to give notice to the employer at least two working days prior to the election.   

  • Post “time off to vote” notices. If not already in place (many pre-printed workplace postings reference time off to vote), employers must post an employee notice at least 10 days before a state-wide election – either in the workplace or where it can easily be seen by employees as they enter or exit their place of work. You can find a list of upcoming elections here, and sample notices here.   

 

Nicole Kamm and Tal Burnovski Yeyni are Employment Defense attorneys

 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

 

Thursday
Oct132016

California Ballot 2016: Los Angeles County Measures A & M

Litigation AttorneyEnvironmental Litigation

 

Stephen T. Holzer

818.907.3299

 

This is the fourth and final blog in our 2016 California Election Guide Series – the first three providing brief synopses of the 17 state-wide ballot initiatives residents will see in November. In this final segment, we will cover the two Los Angeles County measures.  (For those of you looking for information regarding the city measures, go here.)

Measure A: Safe, Clean Neighborhood Parks 

This is also known as the Safe, Clean Neighborhood Parks, Open Space, Beaches, Rivers Protection, and Water Conservation Measure, which incorporates an annual 1.5 cent tax per square foot of building area on property owners. That works out to be less than $23 per year for an owner of a 1,500 square foot home.

In general, it continues funding for parks, open spaces and water resources. But more specifically, Measure A aims to: 

  • Maintain safe, clean parks and playgrounds
  • Reduce gang activity
  • Keep senior recreation centers
  • Maintain safe drinking water
  • Protect beaches, rivers and other natural bodies of water

Funding for these efforts primarily came from propositions passed in 1992 (which ended last year) and 1996 (which will sunset in 2019).

Who’s Voting Yes on Los Angeles County’s Measure A?

Various city, county and state officials; environmental groups, and the Los Angeles Times all recommend voting yes on LA’s Measure A. They claim the measure is necessary to provide safe places for a variety of child and senior activities. The initiative also protects natural areas that haven’t been developed yet; and implements water conservation efforts through recycling, capturing and cleaning rainwater, and converting landscapes with drought-tolerant plants.

Who’s Voting No on the Los Angeles Park Measure?

Organized opposition seems to be practically nonexistent, though the president of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce expressed some concern. He says for one thing, the state ballot is too crowded and so the priorities for county voters should be on transportation and homelessness problems. The tax rate formula was also at issue, as President Gary Toebben claims a levy based on square footage just penalizes business owners, which tend to have larger taxable properties.

Measure M: Los Angeles County Traffic Improvement Plan 

The goal of Measure M is simply to improve transportation via a half cent sales tax increase. The tax will cover: 

  • Traffic flow and safety on freeways (including improved interchanges)
  • Road and sidewalk repairs
  • Earthquake retrofitting of bridges
  • Synchronization of traffic signals
  • Public transportation expansion
  • Affordability of transportation fares for seniors, students and the disabled
  • Connections to jobs, schools, airports (including a new LAX station)
  • Job creation

 Who’s Voting Yes on Measure M?

A variety of LA County cities and their councils, AARP California, the American Heart & Stroke Associations, California Walks, the Green Party of California and others have all come out in favor of transportation improvement bill, according to Yes on M.

The organization claims population increases in the county require an improved transportation system, and that improvements will reduce the time commuters are stuck in traffic by 15 percent.

Who’s Against Measure M’s Transportation Improvements?

Some Measure M opponents like LA County Supervisor Don Knabe and Lakewood City Councilwoman Diane DuBois cite some concerns including a skewed list of priorities – i.e., transportation projects from Measure R passed in 2008 will take a back seat to Measure M’s goals. Or that projects will be unevenly distributed geographically. And that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has had budgeting issues in the past – adding more revenue to the coffers will only muddy their bottom lines even more. They also complain the tax has no end date.

For information regarding state initiatives, click: Propositions 51-56, Propositions 57-61, or Propositions 62-67.

Stephen T. Holzer is the Chair of our Environmental Practice Group and a business litigation attorney. 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

 

 

 

 

Tuesday
Sep202016

Employers' Legislative Update: Governor Brown Signs New Bills

Wage and Hour Defense Attorney

 

by Sue M. Bendavid & Tal Burnovski Yeyni

 

Tis the season for new laws in California and not all of it brings good tidings and cheer for employers.

Recently, Governor Jerry Brown signed several state Assembly and Senate Bills affecting those who employ domestic staff; agricultural workers; teachers; etc. Most companies with employees (or individuals with domestic staff) in California will be affected.

Here’s the current employment law update:

SB 1015 – Domestic Work Employees: Labor Standards

Previously, employees that worked as personal attendants were exempt from overtime and other wage and hour rules.

On January 1, 2014 the Domestic Worker Bill of Rights went into effect and provided that a “domestic work employee who is a personal attendant” is eligible for overtime at one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay if the employee works more than nine hours per day or more than 45 hours per week. The Domestic Worker Bill of Rights was to be in effect until January 1, 2017 – at which time the legislature will decide whether to renew it.

SB 1015 deletes the repeal date, which means that the Domestic Worker Bill of Rights will remain in effect indefinitely.  

AB 1066 – Agricultural Workers: Wage, Hours, and Working Conditions

Federal, state and local laws require employers to comply with wage and hour rules and pay non-exempt employees overtime and minimum wage – and to comply with meal and rest break rules.

Currently, Wage Order 14 sets different standards for overtime for agricultural employees (e.g., 1.5 times the employee’s regular rate of pay for hours worked beyond 10 hours per day and for the first eight hours or the 7th consecutive day of work; two times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over eight on the 7th consecutive day.)

AB 1066 added sections 857 through 864 to the Labor Code which creates new overtime standards for agricultural employees (“under the same standards as millions of other Californians”), on a gradual basis: 

The Governor is authorized to suspend a scheduled “phase-in” only if the Governor suspends a scheduled minimum wage increase (SB 3, signed in April). If suspension occurs, all phase-in dates will be postponed by an additional year.

AB 2337 – New Notice Requirement to Employees 

Current law (Labor Code § 230.1) prohibits employers with 25 or more employees from retaliating or discharging employees who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, for requesting time off to: 

  • Seek medical treatment;

  • Obtain services from a domestic violence shelter or program; or

  • Obtain counseling or participate in safety planning.

This act requires employers to give written notice to new employees regarding the right to take protected time off for the purposes stated above. The notice must also be provided to current employees upon request.

The Labor Commissioner will develop a form that employers may use to comply with this notice requirement. The notice will be available before July 1, 2017. Employers are not required to comply with notice requirement until the Labor Commissioner posts the form on the DLSE website.

AB 2230 – New OT Exemption Requirements for Certain Teachers 

Current law provides that individuals employed as teachers at private elementary or secondary academic institutions are exempt from overtime payment requirements if, among others, they earn no less than two times the state minimum wage for full time employment.

This bill will change the salary requirement for the exemption. As of July 1, 2017, an individual employed as a teacher will be exempt if, among other criteria, the employee earns the greater of:

  1. No less than 100 percent of the lowest salary offered by any school district to a person in a position that requires a valid California teaching credential (excluding individuals employed in that position pursuant to an emergency permit, intern permit, or waiver); OR

  2. No less than 70 percent of the lowest scheduled salary offered by the school district or county in which the private elementary or secondary institution is located, to a person who is in a position that requires the person to have a valid California teaching credential (excluding individuals employed in that position pursuant to an emergency permit, intern permit, or waiver).

In effect, AB 2230 ties private school teaching salaries to that of public school teachers – establishing a wage floor that increases with the public sector.

 

Sue M. Bendavid and Tal Burnovski Yeyni are Employer Defense Attorneys at our Firm. 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Friday
Sep162016

California Ballot 2016: Pros and Cons of Props 62-67

Litigation AttorneyEnvironmental Litigation

Stephen T. Holzer

818.907.3299

 

 

This is part three of our ongoing series, California Ballot 2016, summarizing each of the 17 state-wide measures voters will encounter on the November ballot. Click these links: Props 51-56, or Props 57-61 to catch up on the other initiatives. We’ll tackle some of the measures for Los Angeles County in a later blog.

This time, we’re going to jump out of order and summarize Prop 62 and Prop 66 one after the other, as both have to do with California’s death penalty – and Props 65 and 67 both concern plastic bag use. 

Proposition 62: Justice That Works Act of 2016 

 

California Death PenaltyShould the California death penalty be repealed? If Prop 62 wins voter approval, maximum punishment for criminals will be life imprisonment (instead of execution) without parole; be applied retroactively for current death row inmates; require those serving life to work while in prison; and increase victim restitution moneys accrued from prisoner wages.

Who’s For Prop 62?

Voices supporting Proposition 62 claim the death penalty system is broken – the 13 prisoners executed in California since 1978 cost taxpayers an average of $384 million per inmate because of constitutionally guaranteed appeals and special accommodations, which add up to 18 times the cost of life sentences. Prop 62 could save California $150 million per year by doing away with the death penalty.

Some of the bigger names and organizations supporting Prop 62 include Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, Bernie Sanders, some former district attorneys and judges, as well as the California Democratic Party, California National Association for Advancement of Colored People, and California’s Catholic bishops.

Who’s Against Prop 62?

A group of opponents of Prop 62 are also endorsing Prop 66 (more on that one shortly). The Mend, Don’t End, California’s Death Penalty coalition agrees that the system for capital punishment is broken, but cite justice for victims’ families as a key argument for keeping a death penalty.

Though the names aren’t as big as those supporting 62, there seem to be a lot more opponents listed (just going by endorsement pages on the respective websites). Some of the opponents of 62 include former state governor Pete Wilson; a whole host of district attorneys; sheriffs’ associations in Los Angeles, Orange County, Long Beach, Sacramento, San Diego, etc.; taxpayer associations and others. 

 

Proposition 66: Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016 

 

Prop 66 aims to overhaul the system of capital punishment in California rather than repeal it, by incorporating procedural changes in the appeals process; requiring criminal appellate attorneys to take on death penalty appeals cases (many currently don’t); and requiring death row inmates to pay restitution to victims’ families.

Who’s For Prop 66?

Again, the Mend, Don’t End group is a primary supporter of 66 (see opponents of 62 above). Several district attorneys have come out with opinion pieces supporting 66, including this one by Michael Hestrin of Riverside. They claim Proposition 66 will ensure appeals are heard within five years of sentencing because defendants will be assigned appellate counsel immediately, give victim’s families much-needed closure faster, and that the potential $150 million annual savings to taxpayers is a mere drop in the state budget bucket.

Mark Peterson, D.A. for Contra Costa County, says the current appellate process for death row inmates could run 25 years because of frivolous delay tactics, which the reform measure will eliminate. This will result in hundreds of millions in savings.

Who’s Against Prop 66?

The No on 66 group say this initiative is poorly written, and based on capital punishment laws in Texas where innocent people were mistakenly put to death. Additionally, forcing appellate criminal defense counsel to take death row appeals cases will lead to further miscarriages of justice as many of these attorneys will be unqualified to fairly represent inmates. It doesn’t end with appellate attorneys – prisoners sentenced to death also need habeas corpus attorneys to examine the lawfulness of arrest and imprisonment in the first place – thus increasing the costs of putting the convicted on death row.

Opponents to 66 include several state organizations: Democratic and Libertarian parties, Federation of Teachers, American Civil Liberties Union, Academy of Appellate Lawyers, Catholic Conference, etc. Various prominent elected officials and individuals also oppose 66.

 

Proposition 63: Safety for All Act of 2016 

 

California Ammo and FirearmsInitially proposed by Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, Prop 63 would prohibit the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines and would treat ammunition sales like gun sales. Prop 63 would:

  • Subject persons buying ammunition to background checks and a Department of Justice (DOJ) approval process;
  • Require vendors to obtain licenses to sell ammo and report sales to the DOJ;
  • Require reporting to law enforcement when firearms and ammo are lost or stolen – this applies to individuals as well as vendors;
  • Require certain criminals to relinquish guns, using clear-cut procedures to do so;
  • Require better reporting between the DOJ and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System

Note that some of the requirements and bans above are already written into California law. Governor Jerry Brown signed several gun bills in July – not long after the San Bernardino office party shootings in December and the Orlando nightclub shootings in June.

Who’s For Prop 63?

Those who support Safety for All say more than 33,000 people are killed because of gun violence in America, annually. The initiative closes some loopholes by making criminals prove they turned in their firearms; and that it addresses many firearm and ammunition concerns not related to the legislation passed in July. (See the Prop 63 Myths vs. Facts sheet for more info.) Prop 63 supporters also claim background checks have historically blocked 2.5 million potentially dangerous individuals from buying firearms.

Prop 63 has endorsements from U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, the California Democratic Party, Amnesty International, California Federation of Teachers, and others.

Who’s Against Prop 63?

Opponents to the measure claim there will be an extra fee for ammunition purchase background checks, out-of-state and mail order purchases of bullets will be banned, and private sales will be criminalized. Prop 63 opponents also say those who own large magazines will need to find buyers out of state or turn the magazines in to law enforcement. Additionally, the measure could force vendors to go out of business. 

The Coalition for More Civil Liberties, a/k/a/ the California Rifle & Pistol Association, is spearheading the campaign against Prop 63. They are also supported by the National Rifle Association, the Firearms Policy Coalition, Concealed Nation, and others.

 

Proposition 64:  Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA)

 

Marijuana in CaliforniaShould Californians 21 and older be allowed to use marijuana recreationally? This initiative:

  • Exempts medical marijuana from taxes;
  • Imposes a 15 percent state tax on recreational marijuana;
  • Imposes a cultivation tax of $9.25 per ounce for flowers, and $2.75 per ounce for leaves;
  • Allows for additional local taxes;
  • Prevents large-scale businesses from cashing in on the crop for five years;
  • Strictly regulates marijuana marketing; and
  • Allows for resentencing or expunging records of those convicted of prior marijuana-related crimes.

In 2013, Governor Brown signed a law to legalize the growing of industrial hemp, but only if the federal government authorizes states to do so. Production has been banned by the feds since 1957 because it contains low levels (relative to marijuana) of tetrahydrocannabinol which is the chemical that induces the “high”.

Because of the federal ban, the U.S. imports hemp for fiber, food and fuel products. A handful of other states have already legalized cultivation. Prop 64 removes the condition re federal permission imposed in 2013.

Who’s for Prop 64?

The Californians for Responsible Marijuana Reform claim the state tax alone could generate $1 billion each year for California, and that both state and local governments will save $100 million by not having to pursue legal action against most marijuana offenders (the main exception being those driving while impaired). Most of the revenue generated will go to youth substance abuse programs. Additionally, legalizing industrial hemp production will generate additional millions and create jobs.

Support for AUMA comes from the American Civil Liberties Union of California, the state’s Conference of the NAACP, the California Medical Association, Senator Bernie Sanders, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, other elected officials on both sides of the aisle and certain members of law enforcement.

Who’s Against Prop 64?

One group against AUMA includes Stop Pot 2016, whch says Prop 64 has a loophole that will allow meth and heroin dealers to become licensed to sell marijuana; the drug is highly dangerous to people who have not yet reached full physical (brain) development; and that only a very few can actually benefit from marijuana use. An LA Times editorial claims Proposition 64 is merely a tool to find funding to help fund homelessness programs, and that the revenues via heavy taxes will just encourage consumers to buy weed on the black market.

Opponents of Prop 64 include U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein; state senators Joel Anderson, Cathleen Galgiani and Jim Nielsen; the California Hospital Association, California Associations of Highway Patrolmen and Police Chiefs; and other members of crime fighting, political, religious and medical communities.

 

Proposition 65: Environmental Fee Protection Act 

 

Plastic Bag ProfitsProps 65 and 67 can get confusing. California banned single, plastic bag use two years ago, but a referendum put that ban on hold, unless you happen to live in a municipality where that ban is enforced.

Prop 65 would allocate funds generated from the sale of carry-out bags to the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB). Retailers who sell bags would deposit the proceeds to the fund, potentially tens of millions of dollars, to support specific environmental programs.

Who’s for Prop 65?

Certain groups supporting this initiative claim retailers make a $300 million annual profit on the reusable bags they sell to consumers, and that these profits should be redirected to beach cleanup, litter removal, etc. Since the single-use plastic bag has been banned in most cities, supporters argue that any profits from consumers forced to buy bags should go to environmental causes, particularly if Prop 67 (see below) is passed.

This initiative is actually supported by bag manufacturers, according to KCET, but…a San Francisco Chronicle opinion piece claims bag manufacturers are attempting to confuse voters by putting both Prop 65 and Prop 67 on the state ballot. Prop 65 also seems to be supported by the California Taxpayer Protection Committee and the California Senior Advocates League.

Who’s Against Prop 65?

California’s grocer association claims the 10 cent per single-use bag charge barely covers their costs of providing the bags, according to the Chronicle piece linked above. Additionally, opponents of Prop 65 say the better choice is to vote yes on Prop 67 instead.

 

Proposition 67: Referendum to Overturn Ban on Single–Use Plastic Bags 

 

Plastic Bag BanProp 67 seeks to ratify Senate Bill 270 approved in 2014, banning retailers from providing single-use carryout bags for free, though they would be allowed for perishable items like meat, dairy and produce. But Senate Bill 270 was overturned by referendum in 2015 – effectively “bagging” the plastic bag ban until the upcoming election in November. Prop 67 seeks to reinstate the 2014 ban throughout California (remember that certain cities currently enforce a bag ban).

Who’s for Prop 67?

Groups like the Sierra Club and Heal the Bay are endorsing Proposition 67, stating that less single-bags mean less pollution. These groups want to ban single-use bags for good, which are hardly ever recycled (less than 5 percent), poison the ecosystem, and add up to extra costs for consumers.

In addition to high-profile environmental groups, Prop 67 is endorsed by the Northern California Recycling Association.

Who’s Against Prop 67?

Fight the Plastic Bag Ban says it is a grassroots effort not associated with bag manufacturers. The group claims the referendum to challenge 2014’s SB 270 was endorsed by voters, pushed through via petitions and signatures; and that approving the ban would create inequality between consumers – those exempt from purchasing bags and those who must subsidize the cost of bags for the exempt shoppers. Additionally, municipalities could continue to ban single-use bags at the local level.

Stephen T. Holzer is the Chair of our Environmental Practice Group and a business litigation attorney. 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

 

 

 

 

LEWITT HACKMAN | 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Eleventh Floor, Encino, California 91436-1865 | 818.990.2120