Common use of Notice of Violation Clause in Contracts

Notice of Violation. On September 7, 2016, Xxxxxx served Xxxxxxxxx, the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges that Xxxxxxxxx violated Proposition 65 by failing to warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead from the Products. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made in either of the Notices.

Notice of Violation. On September 7January 27, 20162017, Held served Xxxxxx served Xxxxxxxxx, the California Attorney General and all other certain requisite public enforcement agencies with a “60-Day Notice of Violation Violation” (“Notice”). The Notice alleges ) alleging that Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx violated Proposition 65 by failing when it failed to warn its customers and consumers in California that the Products expose users to lead. To the best of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead from the Products. No Parties’ knowledge, no public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7or around April 1, 20162024, Xxxxxx EHA served Xxx Xxxxxxxxx, the California Attorney General General, and all certain other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation of Proposition 65 (“Notice”). The Notice alleges alleged that Xxx Xxxxxxxxx had violated Proposition 65 by failing to sufficiently warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead from the contained in Covered Products. No To the best of the parties’ knowledge, no public enforcer has commenced and or is diligently otherwise prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made violations alleged in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September November 7, 2016, Xxxxxx served XxxxxxxxxStarwest, Inc., the California Attorney General General, and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges that Xxxxxxxxx Starwest violated Proposition 65 by failing to warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead from the Products. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7or about December 6, 2016, Xxxxxx Xxxxx served Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx and the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (the “Notice”). The Notice alleges , alleging that Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx violated Proposition 65 by failing when it failed to warn its customers and consumers in California that the Products expose users to DEHP. To the best of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead from the Products. No Parties’ knowledge, no public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7March 26, 20162021, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx served Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxx and the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges Violation, alleging that Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx violated Proposition 65 by failing when it failed to warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead from the Productsproducts. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the Notices.

Notice of Violation. On September 7October 20, 20162020, Xxxxxx XXX served XxxxxxxxxXxxxxx, the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies enforcers with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges , alleging that Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx violated Proposition 65 by failing when they failed to warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards risks associated with exposures to lead acrylamide from the ProductsProduct. No To the best of the Parties’ knowledge, no public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made violations alleged in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7January 19, 20162021, Xxxxxxx served Xxxxx Xxxxxx served Xxxxxxxxx, and the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges Violation, alleging that Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx violated Proposition 65 by failing when it failed to warn its their customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead from the Products. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7December 20, 20162019, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx served Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx and the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges , alleging that Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx violated Proposition 65 by failing when it failed to warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead DEHP from the its Products. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7, 2016, Xxxxxx served Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx and the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges , alleging that Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx violated Proposition 65 by failing when it failed to warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead DEHP from the its Products. No To the best of the Parties’ knowledge, no public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7October 5, 20162022, Xxxxxx XXX served Xxxxxxxxxthe Notice on Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, the California Attorney General and all the other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges enforcers, alleging that Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx and others violated Proposition 65 by failing when they failed to warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with alleged exposures to lead from the ProductsProduct. No To the best of the Parties’ knowledge, no public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made violations alleged in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7March 17, 20162023, Xxxxxx XXXX served XxxxxxxxxXxxx Xxxx, the California Attorney General General, and all other the requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges that Xxxxxxxxx , alleging Xxxx Xxxx violated Proposition 65 by failing to warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures that its Products can expose users to lead from the ProductsDINP. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7October 19, 20162023, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx served XxxxxxxxxXxxxxx, Bird in Hand, and the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges , alleging that Xxxxxxxxx the notice recipients violated Proposition 65 by failing to warn its their customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead DEHP from the Products. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7May 20, 20162019, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx served Xxxxxxxxx, Anthropologie and the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges , alleging that Xxxxxxxxx Anthropologie violated Proposition 65 by failing to warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead from the Products. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7May 16, 20162022, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx served XxxxxxxxxBig Lots, and the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges , alleging that Xxxxxxxxx the notice recipients violated Proposition 65 by failing to warn its their customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead from the Products. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7or around December 1, 20162023, Xxxxxx XXX served XxxxxxxxxOutlier, the California Attorney General General, and all certain other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation of Proposition 65 (“Notice”). The Notice alleges alleged that Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx had violated Proposition 65 by failing to sufficiently warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead from the contained in Covered Products. No To the best of the parties’ knowledge, no public enforcer has commenced and or is diligently otherwise prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made violations alleged in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7or around April 4, 20162024, Xxxxxx XXX served XxxxxxxxxWhatIf, the California Attorney General General, and all certain other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation of Proposition 65 (“Notice”). The Notice alleges alleged that Xxxxxxxxx XxxxXx had violated Proposition 65 by failing to sufficiently warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead from the contained in Covered Products. No To the best of the parties’ knowledge, no public enforcer has commenced and or is diligently otherwise prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made violations alleged in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7July 2, 20162021, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx served XxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxx-Sonoma, Inc., Xxxxxxxx-Sonoma Stores, Inc., and the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The , alleging that the Notice alleges that Xxxxxxxxx Recipients violated Proposition 65 by failing to warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with that exposures to lead DEHP may occur from use of the Products. No To the best of the Parties’ knowledge, no public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7December 28, 20162021, Xxxxxx served XxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx issued to Designworks, B&N and the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges , alleging that Xxxxxxxxx the companies violated Proposition 65 by failing when they failed to warn its their customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead from the Products. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7December 28, 20162021, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx served XxxxxxxxxStreamline, Paper Source, and the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges , alleging that Xxxxxxxxx the notice recipients violated Proposition 65 by failing to warn its their customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead DEHP from the Products. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 722, 20162020, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx served Xxxxxxxxx, Evriholder and the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges , alleging that Xxxxxxxxx Evriholder violated Proposition 65 by failing when it failed to warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead DEHP from the its Products. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7October 8, 20162021, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx served XxxxxxxxxXxxxxx, and the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges Violation, alleging that Xxxxxxxxx they violated Proposition 65 by failing when they failed to warn its their customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead from the Products. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the Notices.

Notice of Violation. On September 7April 27, 2016, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx served XxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx, the California Attorney General General, and all other requisite public enforcement agencies enforcers with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges , alleging that Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx violated Proposition 65 by failing when it failed to warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards risks associated with exposures to lead DEHP from the Products. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made violations alleged in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7March 12, 20162019, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx served Xxxxxxxxx, Evriholder and the California Attorney General and all other requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges , alleging that Xxxxxxxxx Evriholder violated Proposition 65 by failing when it failed to warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to lead DEHP from the its Products. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made set forth in either of the NoticesNotice.

Notice of Violation. On September 7November 4, 20162022, Xxxxxx XXXX served XxxxxxxxxXxxxx Xxxx, the California Attorney General General, and all other the requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Notice”). The Notice alleges that Xxxxxxxxx , alleging Xxxxx Xxxx violated Proposition 65 by failing to warn its customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures that its Products can expose users to lead from the ProductsDEHP. No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action to enforce the allegations made in either of the NoticesNotice.