{"id":295,"date":"2026-02-20T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-20T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=295"},"modified":"2026-02-20T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-20T12:00:00","slug":"environmental-health-advocates-v-pancho-villas-d084705-prop-65-substantial-compliance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=295","title":{"rendered":"Environmental Health Advocates v. Pancho Villa’s \u2014 Substantial Compliance Governs Proposition 65 Pre-Suit Notice Requirements"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Pancho Villa’s, Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal, Division One<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-02-20<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
D084705<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Proposition 65, Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, Pre-Suit Notice, Substantial Compliance, Acrylamide<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) protects the public from chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Private enforcers can sue noncomplying businesses but only after providing a 60-day notice to the alleged violator and the Attorney General. Title 27, section 25903 of the California Code of Regulations specifies the notice’s required contents, including identification of the noticing entity (with name, address, and telephone of ‘a responsible individual within the noticing entity’), each chemical involved, the time period of the violation, and an attached copy of the OEHHA-prepared ‘Appendix A’ summary.<\/p>\n

Environmental Health Advocates (EHA) brought a Proposition 65 action against Pancho Villa’s, alleging tortilla products exposed consumers to acrylamide. Before suit, EHA served a 60-day notice that (1) gave contact information for retained counsel rather than ‘a responsible individual within the noticing entity,’ and (2) attached an outdated version of OEHHA’s Appendix A. Pancho Villa’s moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the notice failed to strictly comply with section 25903. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action. EHA appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. As a question of first impression, the court held that section 25903 is directory rather than mandatory, and that substantial compliance \u2014 not strict compliance \u2014 governs Proposition 65 pre-suit notices. Section 25903’s procedural requirements are designed to give the Attorney General, local prosecutors, and the alleged violator meaningful notice of the claim and an opportunity to either commence enforcement or address the alleged violation; perfect technical compliance is not required if those purposes are achieved.<\/p>\n

EHA’s notice substantially complied. Providing retained counsel’s contact information served the same notice-and-communication function as identifying a ‘responsible individual within the noticing entity’; the alleged violator and the Attorney General could readily reach EHA through counsel. Attaching an outdated Appendix A was a technical defect, but the substantive Proposition 65 framework was sufficiently disclosed that the notice’s purposes were not undermined.<\/p>\n

Because the notice substantially complied, judgment on the pleadings was improper.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n