Notice of Violation Sample Clauses

Notice of Violation. On or about February 23, 2017, Wozniak served Aftco, and certain requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”), alleging that Aftco violated Proposition 65 when it failed to warn its customers and consumers in California that the Products expose users to DINP. To the best of the Partiesknowledge, no public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting the allegations set forth in the Notice.
Notice of Violation. On June 22, 2021, Ferreiro served G. Pucci, Scheels All Sports, Inc., and various public enforcement agencies with a document entitled “Notice of Violation of California Health & Safety Code § 25249.6, et seq.” (the “Notice”). The Notice provided G. Pucci and such others, including public enforcers, with notice that alleged that G. Pucci was in violation of California Health & Safety Code § 25249.6, for failing to warn California consumers and customers that use of the Products will expose them to DEHP. No public enforcer has diligently prosecuted the allegations set forth in the Notice.
Notice of Violation. The Company has not received a notice of ------------------- alleged, actual or potential responsibility for, or any inquiry or investigation regarding, (i) any Release or threatened Release of any Hazardous Substance at any location, whether at the Facilities, the former Facilities or otherwise or (ii) an alleged violation of or non-compliance with the conditions of any Permit required under any Environmental Law or the provisions of any Environmental Law. The Company has not received notice of any other claim, demand or Action by any individual or entity alleging any actual or threatened injury or damage to any person, property, natural resource or the environment arising from or relating to any Release or threatened Release of any Hazardous Substances at, on, under, in, to or from any Facilities or former Facilities, or in connection with any operations or activities of the Company.
Notice of Violation. On January 10, 2020, Balabbo served DiMare Design, LLC (“DiMare”), Homegoods, Inc. (“Homegoods”) and various public enforcement agencies with a document entitled “Notice of Violation of California Health & Safety Code § 25249.6, et seq.” (the “Notice”). The Notice provided Yogi and such others, including public enforcers, with notice that alleged that Yogi was in violation of California Health & Safety Code § 25249.6, for failing to warn California consumers and customers that use of the Products will expose them to DEHP. Yogi was subsequently identified as the manufacturer and supplier of the products in the Notices and entered into negotiations with Balabbo as indemnitor to Homegoods and DiMare to resolve Balabbo’s claims concerning exposure to DEHP in the Products. No public enforcer has diligently prosecuted the allegations set forth in the Notice.
Notice of Violation. On or about October 30, 2020, Vinocur served Amazon.com, Inc. and certain public enforcement agencies with a Supplemental 60-Day Notice of Violation (Notice), alleging that Amazon.com, Inc. violated Proposition 65 when it failed to warn customers or consumers in California that the Product and/or Related Products (defined in subsection 2.7 below) expose users to lead. To the best of the Partiesknowledge, no public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting the allegations set forth in the Notice.
Notice of Violation. On July 30, 2014, Leeman served Vanroden and various public enforcement agencies with a document entitled, “60-Day Notice of Violation” (“Notice”), which provided the recipients with notice of alleged violations of California Health & Safety Code § 25249.6 for failing to warn consumers that the Products exposed users in California to DEHP. To the best of the partiesknowledge, no public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting the allegations set forth in the Notice.
Notice of Violation. On March 20, 2020, Espinoza served Big 5, Carlton Sports Company Limited, Dunlop Slazenger Holdings, Inc., and various public enforcement agencies with a document entitled “Notice of Violation of California Health & Safety Code § 25249.6, et seq.” (the “Notice”). The Notice provided Big 5 and such others, including public enforcers, with notice that alleged that Big 5 was in violation of California Health & Safety Code § 25249.6, for failing to warn California consumers and customers that use of the Products will expose them to DEHP. No public enforcer has diligently prosecuted the allegations set forth in the Notice.