| READ MAIN PAGE | RSS Feed | RSS Comments | Log in | |
January 25, 2007 Plan 40 cream target of lawsuit: ingredient causing cancer Tahitian Noni International, Inc. has received a notice of violation of the safe drinking water and toxic enforcement act of 1986 (California Health and Safety Code 25249.5 et. seq.) because of their Tahiti Trim Plan 40 Body Balance Cream and regarding Consumer Progesterone, and Testosterone Creams, Gels, and/or Lotion Products. The Carrick Law Group P.C., on behalf of the California Women’s Law Center has served this Notice of Violation to a list of companies that includes Tahitian Noni International, Inc. (see the link above for details). The Notice is the prerequisite for the California Women’s Law Center to commence legal action to enforce the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enfocement Act of 1986 and on the belief that the violations outlined in the Notice occur in every county and city in California. The California Attorney General and the district attorney of every California county and the city attorney of every California city (with a population over 750.000) have also received this Notice. The Notice states that in the course of doing business, the Companies, knowingly and intentiolally have exposed, and continues to expose, individuals (especially woman) to the listed chemicals and that no clear and reasonable warning is or has been provided by the Companies to individuals regarding exposure to the listed chemicals or regarding the fact that these are known to the State of California to be a health risk. The state of California lists Progesterone, Medroxyprogesterone acetate, Testosterone and its esters as carcinogens (known to cause cancer) and lists Medroxyprogesterone acetate, Methyltestosterone, Testosterone cypionate and Testosterone enanthate, as reproductive toxins. May 22, 2007 TNI settles lawsuit with CWLC out of court June 1, 2007 This Consent Judgment is entered into by and between Katherine Lee Buckland (”Ms. Buckland”), the California Women’s Law Center (”CWLC” – collectively with Ms. Buckland, “Plaintiffs”), and defendant TAHITIAN NONI INTERNATIONAL, INC. (hereinafter “Defendant”). 1. Definitions. As used in this Consent Judgment, the following definitions shall apply: 1.1 “Regulated Chemicals” are: Progesterone, Medroxyprogesterone acetate, Testosterone and its esters, Methyltestosterone, Testosterone cypionate, and/or Testosterone enanthate as an ingredient. Each Regulated Chemical is a chemical lcnown to the State of California to cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity. 1.2 ‘Products” are consumer creams, gels and/or lotion products containing as an ingredient Progesterone. “Products” shall also include any fixture Products that are manufactured by or on behalf of Defendant for sale in California under any product name or brand, whether a current or new name and/or brand. 1.3 Plaintiffs and Defendant will be referred to collectively as the “Parties” or individually as a “Party” 2. Background. 2.1 Katherine Lee Buckland is the Executive Director of the California Women’s Law Center (”CWLC”), a non-profit California corporation. Since its founding in 1989, CWLC has served as a unique advocate in California, working in collaboration with others to protect, secure and advance the comprehensive civil rights of women and girls. The CWLC works to ensure, through systemic change, that life opportunities for women and girls are free from unjust social, economic, and political constraints. 2.2 Ms. Buckland is a “consumer’ within the meaning of California Civil Code (”Civil Code”) §1761(d), and is also a “person” within the meaning of California Business and Professions (”B&P”) Code §l7201, §17204 and §17506. She brought and settles this lawsuit on her own behalf and, to the fullest extent permitted by law, on behalf of the general public. 2.3 Defendant is a UTAH corporation with its principal place of business and/or headquarters located at 333 West River Park Drive, Provo, UT 84604. Defendant distributed and/or sold its Products directly or indirectly in California. 2.4 Beginning on or about February 9, 2006, CWLC served Defendant and each of the appropriate public enforcement agencies with a “60-Day Notice” that provided Defendant and the public enforcement agencies with a notice alleging that Defendant was in violation of Proposition 65 for failing to warn the purchasers of, and individuals using, the Products that the use of the Products exposes them to Regulated Chemicals. Defendant stipulates for the purpose of this Consent Judgment that the 60-Day Notice sent to it is adequate to comply with Title 22, California Code of Regulations §12903. None of the public enforcement agencies has commenced and begun diligently prosecuting an action against Defendant for such alleged violations. 2.5 On or about February 9, 2007, Ms. Buckland, pursuant to Civil Code §1782 served Defendant with a notice letter (the “Notice”) via certified mail, return receipt requested, stating inter alia as follows: These Products have been sold to literally millions of California consumers without any of the noticed companies providing a clear and reasonable warning prior to their purchase by a consumer that the Progesterone, Medroxyprogesterone acetate, Testosterone and its esters, Methyltestosterone, Testosterone cypionate, and/or Testosterone enanthate in these Products are chemicals known to be carcinogens and/or reproductive toxins by the State of California. Nor has any of the noticed companies disclosed the potential adverse health effect risks posed by exposure to these chemicals in these Products because Progesterone, Medroxyprogesterone acetate, Testosterone and its esters, Methyltestosterone, Testosterone cypionate, and/or Testosterone enanthate in these Products are chemicals regulated as drugs by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. These omissions of material facts constitute deceptive representations and misrepresentations, failure to disclose that the product is a regulated drug, and misbranding in violation of §1770 of the CLRA. 2.6 On December 7, 2005, Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint entitled “Buckland, et al v. Threshold Enterprises, Ltd., et al”, No. BC344046, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. On January 24, 2006, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. Ms. Buckland alleged violations of the CLRA, Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq. and §17500 et seq., and Civil Code §1709 and §1710, against Defendant. Ms. Buckland alleged no claim, directly or indirectly, pursuant to Proposition 65 (Health & Safety (”H&S”) Code §25249.5 et seq.) in the First Amended Complaint CWLC alleged violations of Proposition 65 (H&S Code §25249.5 et seq.) in the First Amended Complaint On August 21, 2006, Ms. Buckland filed a Supplemental Complaint (together with the First Amended Complaint, “Complaints”). On November 6, 2006, Ms. Buckland filed a First Amended Supplemental Complaint, and on November 6, 2006, CWLC filed a Second Amended Complaint (collectively, “Complaints”). 2.7 For purposes of this Consent Judgment only, the Parties stipulate that this Court has jurisdiction over the allegations of the violations contained in the Notices and the Complaints, and personal jurisdiction over Defendant as to the acts or omissions alleged in the Complaints; that venue is proper in the County of Los Angeles; and that this Court has jurisdiction to enter this Consent Judgment. 2.8 Defendant denies that the Products have been or are in violation of any law, and further contends that all Products have been and are safe for use as directed. However, the Parties desire to resolve this matter (including the Notice, Complaints and all related mailers) without further Litigation on or cost. 2.9 The Parties enter into this Consent Judgment to settle certain disputed claims as alleged in the Notice and the Complaints, to avoid prolonged and costly litigation, and to promote the public interest. By executing and complying with this Consent Judgment, no Party admits any facts or conclusions of law including, but not limited to, any facts or conclusions of law regarding any violations of the California Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code §1750 et seq.), the Unlawful Competition Law (B&P Code §17200 et seq.), the False Advertising Law B&P Code §17500 et seq.), Civil Code §l709 and §1710, Proposition 65 H&S Code §25249.5 et seq.) or any other statutory, common law or equitable claim or requirement relating to or arising from Defendant Products. This Consent Judgment shall not be construed as an admission by Defendant as to any of the allegations in the Notices or the Complaints. 3. Injunctive Relief. 3.1 Retail Sale of Products Requires a Warning Pursuant to Civil Code §1782(d), B&P Code §17203 and §17535, and Health & Safety Code §25249.7(a), the sale of a Product by Defendant directly or indirectly to consumers in California shall be accompanied by a warning. This warning shall be provided both by (a) product labeling pursuant to Paragraph 3.1.1 and 3.1.2; and (b) warnings for any mail order and Internet sales pursuant to Paragraph 3.1.3. 3.1.1 Product Label Warnings For any Product that is manufactured by or at the direction of Defendant (i.e., private-label products), Defendant shall, at the earliest such time when, in the ordinary course of business, new labels for such Products are printed on or after January 1, 2007, include (in the same type size as the surrounding, non-heading text) the following warning on the label of each of its Products that it manufactures and ships for sale directly or indirectly to consumers in California, including the specific name or names of the Regulated Chemicals where shown:
3.1.2 Notice to Third Parties For any Product that is sold by Defendant but manufactured by a third party (i.e., non- private-label Products), Defendant shall, within 30 days of entry of this consent judgment by the court, notify the manufacturer or supplier of such Product (sending a copy of each such notice to Plaintiff) that Defendant will not accept shipments of such Product for sale directly or indirectly to consumers in California unless such Product is accompanied by the warning required by paragraph 3.1.1 above or a comparable warning pursuant to the terms of a separate consent judgment applying to such Product. 3.1.3 Additional Warnings for Mail Order or Internet Sales If Defendant sells a Product by mail order or over the Internet to a purchaser in the state of California on or after the date that is 90 days after the entry of this Consent Judgment by the court, the following additional requirements shall apply:
3.2 Pursuant to Civil Code §1782(d) and B&P Code §17203 and §17535, and Health & Safety Code §25249.7(a), effective when, in the ordinary course of business (but no sooner than 90 days after entry of this Consent Judgment), Defendant prints or posts electronically new labels and advertising, marketing, mail order catalog or Internet-based descriptions of each of its respective Products, Defendant agrees to remove any “health-related” claims (as that term is used by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under Title 21 United States Code §321(g) and Title 21 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 310.530, Over-The-Counter Topically Applied Hormone Drug Products) made by Defendant for any of the Products. 4. Financial Settlement and Attorneys’ Fee Payments. 4.1 In lieu of damages or penalties, Defendant shall pay to the CWLC the sum of $50,500.00 (”Settlement Amount”), and shall make that payment to the Client Trust Account of the Carrick Law Group P.C., by wire transfer, certified or bank check in immediately available funds. This settlement amount shall be due and payable within five (5) calendar days after the date of notice of entry of this Consent Judgment. This settlement amount shall be disbursed promptly thereafter by the Carrick Law Group P.C. to the CWLC. 4.2 Attorneys Fees and Costs. The Parties shall each bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs. 5. Claims Covered and Released. This Consent Judgment includes the resolution of all actual and potential claims that were considered or could have been. brought by Plaintiff regarding the Regulated Chemical(s) in Defendant’s Products. This Consent Judgment is a final and binding resolution between Plaintiff and Defendants of any and all alleged violations of the CLRA, the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, Civil Code §1709 and §1710, Proposition 65, or any other law that was or could have been asserted by Plaintiff arising from or related to Defendant’s Products up through the date of entry of this Consent Judgment, including, but not limited to any claims for attorneys’ fees and costs (collectively “Claims”). Plaintiffs hereby release the Defendant’s Releases (as defined below) and waive all rights to institute or participate in, directly or indirectly, any form of legal action seeking any form of relief (whether injunctive, compensatory, punitive, or otherwise) arising from the Claims against Defendants, its officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys, consultants, representatives, shareholders, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, predecessors, successors, subdivisions, downstream distributors, downstream retailers, downstream customers, and upstream suppliers of the raw materials used in the Products (the “Defendant’s Releasees”); however, Plaintiffs cannot and expressly do not release any other claims, including specifically and without limitation any personal injury or directly related claims, that could be brought by any other individual or organization. Defendants hereby release each Plaintiff from and against any claims arising out of each Plaintiffs notices and their filing or prosecution of this action. Each Party respectively waives any right to appeal or other review of this Consent Judgment, except as expressly provided in this Consent Judgment. 6. Covenant Not To Sue. The Parties covenant and agree that with regard to those matters that the Parties have herein released and that are described above, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants will ever institute a lawsuit or administrative proceedings against the other, nor shall Plaintiffs or Defendants assert any claim of any nature against any person or entity hereby released with regard to any such matters which have been released. However, nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to preclude enforcement of this Consent Judgment pursuant to paragraph 7 below. 7. Enforcement of Consent Judgment. Any Party may, by noticed motion or order to show cause before the Superior Court of Los Angeles, enforce this Consent Judgment. To enforce this Consent Judgment, any Party must first give written notice of any violation of this Consent Judgment alleged to have occurred to the Party alleged to be in violation. The Parties shall meet and confer ingood faith and attempt to resolve the alleged violation. If a resolution is not reached within thirty (30) days of the date of the notice, the aggrieved Party may move the Court to hear and resolve the dispute. The prevailing Party in any proceeding brought to enforce this Consent Judgment shall be entitled to recover from the other Party the prevailing Party’s reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in such an enforcement proceeding. 8. Application of Consent Judgment. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of this Consent Judgment shall apply to, be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, Ms. Buckland and the CWLC, their divisions, subdivisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, predecessors and assigns, and the directors, officers, employees, legal counsel, and agents of each of them, as applicable, and will inure to the benefit of the Parties’ parent companies, all suppliers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers and contract manufacturers, and all of their respective directors, officers, employees, legal counsel, and agents. 9. Modification/Termination of Consent Judgment. This Consent Judgment may be modified or terminated upon written agreement of Defendants and Plaintiffs, with approval of the Court, or upon noticed motion for good cause shown. However, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith and attempt to mutually agree upon any modification prior to the filing of any motion. The Parties acknowledge that new toxicological information or exposure assessments concerning hazardous substances and testing methodologies are continuously becoming available, and that statutory arid regulatory standards applicable to the Products may evolve in the future, either of which may establish good cause for modification of this Consent Judgment. The burden of proof in any such motion shall be on the moving party to establish such good cause. The prevailing Party in any such motion shall be entitled to recover from the other Party the prevailing Party’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the preparation and prosecution of such a motion. 10. Governing Law. This Consent Judgment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. 11. Entire Agreement. The Parties declare and represent that no promise, inducement or other agreement has been made conferring any benefit upon any party except those contained herein and that this Consent Judgment contains the entire agreement pertaining to the subject matter hereof. This Consent Judgment supersedes any prior or contemporaneous negotiations, representations, agreements and understandings of the Parties with respect to such matters, whether written or oral. Parol evidence shall be inadmissible to show agreement by, between or among the Parties to any term or condition contrary to or in addition to the terms and conditions contained in this Consent Judgment. The Parties acknowledge that each has not relied on any promise, representation or warranty, expressed or implied, not contained in this Consent Judgment. 12. Challenges. Subject to their rights to apply for a modification of this Consent Judgment for good cause shown under Paragraph 9 hereof, the Parties agree that they, individually or collectively, will not seek to challenge or to have determined invalid, void or unenforceable any provision of this Consent Judgment or this Consent Judgment itself. The Parties understand that this Consent Judgment contains the relinquishment of legal rights and each Party has, as each has deemed appropriate, sought the advice of legal counsel, which each of the Parties has encouraged the other to seek. Further, no Party has reposed trust or confidence in any other Party so as to create a fiduciary, agency or confidential relationship. 13. Construction. This Consent Judgment has been jointly negotiated and drafted. The language of this Consent Judgment shall be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against any Party. 14. Authority to Stipulate to Consent Judgment. Each signatory to this Consent Judgment represents and warrants that each signatory has all requisite power, authority and legal right necessary to execute and deliver this Consent Judgment and to perform and carry out the transactions contemplated by this Consent Judgment Each signatory to this Consent Judgment represents that each has been duly authorized to execute this Consent Judgment No other or further authorization or approval from any person will be required for the validity and enforceability of the provisions of this Consent Judgment, except entry by the Court, 15. Cooperation and Further Assurances. The Parties will execute such other documents and take such other actions as may be necessary to further the purposes and fulfill the terms of this Consent Judgment 16. Counterparts. This Consent Judgment may be executed in counterparts and has the same force and effect as if all the signatures were obtained in one document. 17. Notice. 17.1 All correspondence and Notice required by this Consent Judgment to Plaintiffs shall be sent as follows: Katherine Lee Buckland, Esq. With a copy to: Roger Lane Carrick, Esq. 17.2 All correspondence and Notice required by this Consent Judgment to Defendant shall be sent to Defendant as follows: H. Michael Drake, Esq. With a copy to: Irwin B. Feinberg, Esq. 18. Entry of Stipulation For Entry of Consent Judgment Required. This Consent Judgment shall be null and void, and without any force or effect, unless fully approved as required by law and entered by the Court. If the Court does not enter this Consent Judgment, the execution thereof by Defendant or Plaintiff shall not be construed as an admission by Defendant or Plaintiffs of any fact, issue of law or violation of law. 19. Jurisdiction. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to implement this Consent Judgment. 20. Compliance with Reporting Requirements. CWLC shall comply with the reporting form requirements referred to in Health and Safety Code section 25249.7(f) and established in Title 11 of the California Code of Regulations sections 3000-3008. Copies of all such reports shall be supplied as provided in Paragraph 18.2. 21. Non-Interference In Settlement Approval Process. The Parties will cooperate, as well as use their respective best efforts, to secure the Attorney General’s approval of this Consent Judgment and not to seek his disapproval of any portion of this Consent Judgment. IT IS SO STIPULATED. [signed and dated] FINDINGS AND ORDER 1. The Court finds that the warnings that may be required in Section 3 of the stipulated Consent Judgment in this matter regarding the sale of certain products by defendant TAHITIAN NONI INTERNATIONAL, INC. comply with the provisions of Health & Safety Code §25249.5-25249.13. 2. In the stipulated Consent Judgment in this matter, the Parties’ agreement in Section 4 of the Consent Judgment that no civil penalties are warranted is in accord with the criteria set forth in Health & Safety Code §25249.7(b)(2), in that payments totaling $50,500.00 in financial relief in the form of “in lieu of damages or penalties” are to be made by the Defendant to Plaintiff California Women’s Law Center (”CWLC”). The Court finds that CWLC has committed to use this financial relief in conformity with Proposition 65’s overall goals as well as its own non-profit articles of incorporation to address the litigation’s public health issue of protecting women’s health through CWLC’s programs, which include but are not limited to projects addressing public health, domestic violence, reproductive rights, and physical fitness issues. 3. Because each Party to the Consent Judgment is bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs, no finding by the Court is required as to whether those fees and costs are reasonable. 4. In light of the findings made above, and based upon the Court’s review of the proposed stipulated Consent Judgment executed among the Parties, the Court finds that this Consent Judgment is just and serves and will serve the pubic interest 5. The Consent Judgment is hereby adopted as the ORDER and JUDGMENT of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED. DATED: May 09, 2007 ROBERT L. HESS |
Noni World Wide Warning
We took a hidden camera into a meeting for sales distributors in Costa Mesa.
It sounded like money is growing on trees, at least, the Noni tree. Sales of Tahitian Noni juice are in the billions.
"Every 1.7 seconds somebody buys a bottle of Tahitian Noni juice," one salesman told us.
The dealer says he is a "pearl" and starts explaining how the pyramid scheme works; that "two percent
of the world wide financial turnover is distributed amongst all pearls" and that after reaching that level
within the organizational pyramid structure you can become a "diamond pearl", "double diamond pearl",
"tripple diamond pearl" and finally "black pearl". He also says that
"Some [dealers] in The Netherlands already make 10.000 euros a month in additional bonussus".
The undercover reporter is presented with these miracle income opportunities and easy and quick advances
within the pyramidal organization structure, and of course, lots and lots of extra money.
|
This website is not related or associated with any competitor of TNI or any corporation or individual(s) operating in the pharmaceutical and/or medical field.
TAHITIAN NONI ® is a trademark of Tahitian Noni International, Inc.
World Wide Warning and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers
are fully responsible for this content. In addition, the views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of World Wide Warning or its affiliates.
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted (C) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in the 'fair use doctrine'. It is distributed without profit.