COMPLIANCE INFO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A 1 equitable powers. The Court retains jurisdiction to impose penalties on K MART for non 2 11 compliance with the injunctive provisions as provided under applicable laws. Moreover, any ac 3 or omission in violation of the permanent injunction may also be considered for prosecutioi 4 under substantive standards imposed by law These requirements are intended to, encourage 5 future compliance with applicable laws by K MART. Therefore, under the enforcement term: 6 of the Final Judgment, should K MART engage in prohibited conduct, such misconduct coulc 7 violate both the injunctive terms of the Final Judgment and the requirements of the underlying 8 statute, and K MART could be subject to penalties for violating the Final Judgment and/oI 9 separately pursuant to the penalty provisions of the applicable statute in a separate enforcement 10 action. 11 ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT 12 I. The Terms of the Final Judgment are Within the People's Prosecutorial Discretion, 13 and are Subject to Disapproval by the Court Only if the Final Judgment is Clearly 14 Contrary to Public Policy or Law 15 In determining whether a particular settlement is appropriate,. the Court should afford 16 substantial deference to the judgment of the Attorney General and the District Attorneys. The 17 Attorney General is constitutionally designated as the "chief law officer of the state" and has the 18 constitutional duty to ensure that state law is adequately enforced. (See Cal. Const. Art. V, § 13; 19 Camp v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 334, 353.) Under Chapters 6.5 and 6.95, 20 of Division 20, of the Health and Safety Code and under the UCL the Attorney General and 21 local prosecutors sue "in the name of the People of the State of California," which signifies that 22 the action is an exercise of the sovereign power (See Gov Code §100.) The discretionary 23 power of a prosecutor to investigate, prosecute charges, and negotiate settlements traditionally 24 applied in criminal proceedings has been specifically held to apply to civil law enforcement 25 actions filed by the Attorney General under the UCL. (People v. Cimarusti (1978) 81 26 Cal.App.3d 314, 322-24.) As that court stated, it is "the function of the executive to engage in 27 any negotiation with the defense by which a lenient disposition of the charge made is secured 28 without trial." (Id., at 323). Accordingly, the determination by the Attorney General and the -7- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES M■