throbber
1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`
`RONDA BALDWIN-KENNEDY ESQ. SBN# 302813
`LAW OFFICES OF RONDA BALDWIN-KENNEDY
`5627 Kanan Road, Suite 614
`Agoura Hills, CA 91301
`Telephone: (951) 268-8977
`Facsimile: (702) 974-0147
`Email: ronda@lorbk.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`FREE SPIRIT ORGANICS; AMERICAN STATES
`UNIVERSITY; CANNABIS SCIENCE, INC.; HRM
`FARMS
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`FREE SPIRIT ORGANICS NAC;
`AMERICAN STATES UNIVERSITY;
`CANNABIS SCIENCE, INC. AND
`HRM FARMS,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY BOARD OF
`SUPERVISORS; SAN JOAQUIN
`COUNTY COUNSEL; ERIN HIROKO
`SAKATA; MIGUEL VILLAPUDUA;
`KATHERINE MILLER; TOM PATTI;
`BOB ELLIOTT; CHUCK WINN; SAN
`JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF; DOES 1-
`10, INCLUSIVE,
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`I.
` Violation Of Supremacy Clause/Preemption
` [U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2]
`II. Unconstitutional Vagueness
` [U.S. Const. Am. 5, 4]
`III. Unlawful Bill of Attainder/Ex Post Facto
` [U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 3]
`IV. Violation of Fourteenth Amendment -
` Substantive / Procedural Due Process
`V. Violation of Fourth Amendment -
` Unlawful Seizure [42 U.S.C. §1983]
`VI. Declaratory Judgment
`VII. Deprivation of Rights [42 U.S.C §1983
`VIII. Violations of the Brown Act
`IX. Violation of the 14th Amendment
` Equal Protection
`
`
`REQUEST FOR
` Return of Property Seized;
` Preliminary Injunction;
` Permanent Injunction;
` Declaration re Ordinance Is Void;
` Declaration re Search Warrant Is Void;
` Declaration re Seizure Was Unlawful;
` Punitive Damages
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`“To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our
`colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. No
`field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new
`discoveries cannot yet be made... Teachers and students must
`always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new
`maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate
`and die …”
`
`Chief Justice Earl Warren - Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) 354
`U.S. 234, 250
`
`RULE 8A SHORT PLAIN STATEMENT OF CLAIM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`California’s Food and Agriculture Code [“FAC”] expressly excludes Hemp
`
`research institutions from regulation in numerous places. See e.g. FAC § 81002 (a); FAC §81003
`
`(a); FAC §81004 (a); FAC §81005 (a); FAC §81006 (a) (1), (b), (d),(f).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs Cannabis Science Inc. and Free Spirit Organics NAC are partners in the
`
`business of growing and cultivating industrial hemp for research purposes. Each fits the definition
`
`of research organizations given in the Farm and Agriculture Code, Plaintiff American States
`
`University [“ASU’] is an institution of higher learning and a research partner with the other
`
`plaintiffs. Individually and collectively, Plaintiffs and their hemp cultivation activities are
`
`expressly exempted from regulation.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants County Board of Supervisors conducted a secret meeting at which
`
`Plaintiffs’ hemp growing operation was explicitly discussed and targeted. The result of the
`
`meeting was the enactment of Ordinance 4497, which purports to criminalize hemp in San
`
`Joaquin County. In addition to impermissibly regulating research institutions, the Board of
`
`Supervisors impermissibly redefined “Hemp”, and impermissibly redefined “Established
`
`Agricultural Research Organization”, after impermissibly finding the existing definitions within
`
`in California’s Hemp Act to be “vague”.
`
`4.
`
`It will be shown that Ordinance 4497 (The “offending ordinance” or the
`
`“challenged ordinance”) is unconstitutionally violative of the supremacy / preemption doctrines
`
`found in both the United States and California constitutions, as it is in conflict with supreme law
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`found in California’s Food and Agriculture Code, including the Hemp Act (2017), United States
`
`Executive Order 12919 (1994), and 7 U.S.C. § 5940 (Section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of
`
`2014.
`
`5.
`
`It will be shown that the offending ordinance is void for vagueness on multiple
`
`counts; and that it constitutes both a bill of attainder and ex post facto legislation, as it
`
`retroactively criminalized plaintiffs’ growing operation, and targeted them for punishment
`
`specifically (or at minimum, impermissibly prevented a defined category of persons – hemp
`
`growers - from practicing their professions).
`
`6.
`
`Acting under the purported authority of the challenged ordinance, and in
`
`10
`
`possession of a defective warrant, law enforcement officers seized the entire crop of hemp,
`
`11
`
`estimated value of $77 M.
`
`12
`
`7.
`
`Thus, Plaintiffs will prove violations of their First Amendment right to conduct
`
`13
`
`scientific research in the public interest, their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable
`
`14
`
`search and seizure, their Fourteenth Amendment rights to Equal Protection and Due Process, and
`
`15
`
`their statutory rights under the Brown Act.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`8.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Title 28 of
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`18
`
`the United States Code, §§§1331, 1343, and 1367 as well as pursuant to Title 42 and Title 18 of
`
`19
`
`the United States Code, §§§ 1942, 1983 and 1988 and subject matter of Plaintiff’s state claim
`
`20
`
`arising out of California’s common law pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1331, et. seq. for supplemental
`
`21
`
`jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`9.
`
`All the events described herein occurred in San Joaquin County, California.
`
`Pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code §1931, Venue is therefore appropriate here in the
`
`VENUE
`
`25
`
`Eastern District Federal Court of California.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Free Spirit Organics, NAC, [“FSO”] is a tribal-owned Native American
`
`company organized under the laws of the State of Nevada with tribal sovereignty status, a
`Page 3 of 34
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`real party in interest with standing pursuant to FRCP 17(b), and is and at all relevant times leased
`
`managed and operated 250 acre plot located at 11700 West Lower Jones Road in Stockton,
`
`California on which 26.19 acres were allocated exclusively to the growing of only
`
`industrial hemp. FSO fits the definition of a research organization is defined as [FAC
`
`81000(c)(1)] “A public or private institution or organization that maintains land or facilities for
`
`agricultural research, including colleges, universities, agricultural research centers, and
`
`conservation research centers” and is expressly exempted from regulation. As a partner to the
`
`research operation, FSO is an owner of, and has a financial interest in the subject grow.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff American States University [“ASU”] is a California institution of higher
`
`10
`
`education as defined under sections 81000 et. seq. of the California Food & Agricultural Code.
`
`11
`
`ASU is a real party in interest, headquartered in Orange County, California, a partner of FSO, and
`
`12
`
`has standing as an unincorporated association pursuant to FRCP 17(b). ASU’s executive staff
`
`13
`
`includes Raymond C. Dabney President, CEO, and Co-Founder as well as Allen A. Herman,
`
`14
`
`M.D., Ch.B., Ph.D., Chief Medical Officer, both of whom have been published, inter alia, in the
`
`15
`
`medical journal Frontiers in Oncology. At all times material “ASU” has revolutionized higher
`
`16
`
`education by creating a new vertically integrated model of operations to provide jobs throughout
`
`17
`
`the community, full scholarships, and further-subsidized education packages to members of the
`
`18
`
`Native American community and any other economically packages to members of the Native
`
`19
`
`American community and any other economically challenged individuals with the desire to
`
`20
`
`improve their job skills based on ASU’s curricula. As a partner to the research operation, ASU is
`
`21
`
`an owner of, and has a financial interest in the subject grow.
`
`22
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Cannabis Science Inc. [“CSI”] is and at all times material a publicly
`
`23
`
`traded corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada with a principal place of
`
`24
`
`business in Orange County, California and CSI is comprised of public health experts who have
`
`25
`
`ongoing research with leading experts in cancer and public health research. CSI fits the definition
`
`26
`
`of a research organization is defined as [FAC 81000(c)(1)] “A public or private institution or
`
`27
`
`organization that maintains land or facilities for agricultural research, including colleges,
`
`28
`
`universities, agricultural research centers, and conservation research centers”and is expressly
`Page 4 of 34
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`exempted from regulation. CSI’s initial research has been published in the peer-reviewed medical
`
`journal Frontiers in Oncology with further credits to Raymond C. Dabney, President and CEO of
`
`Cannabis Science Inc., and Dr. Allen A. Herman, Cannabis Science Inc., Chief Medical Officer.
`
`Other key management heads include the President of the Cannabis Science Scientific Advisory
`
`Board, retired United States Assistant Surgeon General Roscoe M. Moore, Jr., D.V.M., Ph.D.,
`
`D.Sc. and the President of the Cannabis Science International Government Affairs Board, former
`
`United States House Representative Honorable Ronald V. Dellums (1971-1998). See attached
`
`Exhibit A. At all times material CSI has received U.S. Federal Government clearance,
`
`Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code from the Defense Logistics Agency’s CAGE
`
`10
`
`Program Office at the U.S. Department of Defense, to receive U.S. Federal Government
`
`11
`
`contracts. CSI works with leading experts in drug development and clinical research to develop,
`
`12
`
`produce, and commercialize groundbreaking drugs using cannabinoids extracted and formulated
`
`13
`
`from the hemp or cannabis plant as treatments for: Cancer, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s, arthritis,
`
`14
`
`asthma, autism, nearly all of the autoimmune diseases, brain trauma, diabetes, various digestive
`
`15
`
`disorders, glaucoma, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, influenza, pain management,
`
`16
`
`Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Tourette’s Syndrome, infections, and several other
`
`17
`
`neurobehavioral disorders and degenerative neurological conditions. CSI is researching and
`
`18
`
`developing its proprietary cannabinoid-based solutions to optimize treatments with an overall
`
`19
`
`emphasis on accessibility to those most in need of the medical benefits from hemp-derived
`
`20
`
`medicines (collectively “patients”). As a partner to the research operation, CSI is an owner of,
`
`21
`
`and has a financial interest in the subject grow.
`
`22
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff HRM Farms, Inc. (“HRM”) is a California corporation with a principal
`
`23
`
`place of business in Holt, California at the site of the subject grow, and is a partner of FSO, and
`
`24
`
`ASU; a real property in interest; HRM Farms is in the agricultural business they are the growers
`
`25
`
`of varies crops. HRM Farms conducts agricultural research for the best ways to grow varies
`
`26
`
`crops. HRM Farms and has standing pursuant to FRCP 17 (b). As a partner to the research
`
`27
`
`operation, HRM is an owner of, and has a financial interest in the subject grow.
`
`28
`
`14.
`
`Defendants “San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors” including named
`Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`defendants, Miguel Villapudua, Katherine Miller, Tom Patti, Bob Elliott, and Chuck Winn
`
`[collectively “Board”] are and at all times material “public servants” and “trustees” and being
`
`sued in their personal capacity acting under color of state law and entrusted with the duty of
`
`representing the residents of San Joaquin County, and at all times material acting, or purporting to
`
`act, within their official capacities with respect to the events described herein.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant Erin Hiroko Sakata [“Sakata”] is and at all times material a California
`
`licensed attorney and employee of County, working in the San Joaquin County Counsel’s office
`
`[County Counsel”]. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Sakata bought this
`
`matter to the Board and presented her alleged evidence at the September 26, 2017 board meeting
`
`10
`
`in support of passage of Ordinance 4479 [“offending ordinance”]. Plaintiffs are informed and
`
`11
`
`believe and thereon allege that Sakata coordinated and conspired with County Sheriff and other
`
`12
`
`County officials to intentionally facilitate the events described Herein with the specific intent to
`
`13
`
`interfere with (a) the ability of plaintiffs to extract the cannabidiol cannabinoid [“CBD”] from
`
`14
`
`their hemp and (b) the ability of plaintiffs to complete their agricultural research.
`
`15
`
`16.
`
`Defendant San Joaquin County Sheriff [“Sheriff”] is a group of public employees
`
`16
`
`charged with enforcement of actions in the unincorporated parts of San Joaquin County.
`
`17
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that members of the Sheriff’s office
`
`18
`
`conspired with County Counsel and the District Attorney’s office to communicate false
`
`19
`
`information and statements to the Board, whether knowingly, recklessly, or otherwise, at the
`
`20
`
`public meeting on September 26, 2017.
`
`21
`
`17.
`
`Defendants Does 1-10 are sued in both their personal and official capacities as
`
`22
`
`employees and/or officials of County and/or the United States Department of Justice [“DOJ”].
`
`23
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that all defendants and Does 1-10 are, and
`
`24
`
`each of them is, responsible for the acts alleged herein as the agents and employees of County
`
`25
`
`and/or DOJ. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that all defendants were, and
`
`26
`
`each was, when doing the acts herein alleged, acting within the scope of their office, authority,
`
`27
`
`agency and/or employment, under color of law, in representative capacity on behalf of County
`
`28
`
`and/or DOJ, and are therefore individually and collectively responsible for the acts complained of
`Page 6 of 34
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`herein. County and/or DOJ defendants acting separately and in unison, directly and through their
`
`agents and subordinates, infringed on the rights of each of plaintiffs are responsible for drafting,
`
`maintaining, and/or administering the policies, procedures and/or practices and/or were
`
`responsible for execution, enforcement, and application of the aforementioned policies,
`
`procedures and/or practices and were each co-participants in the actions and inactions with the
`
`other named defendants herein which constitute violations of Constitutional law, federal law,
`
`and/or California law - most notably the passage, approval, and enforcement of the offending
`
`ordinance.
`
`STANDING
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`18.
`
`Each surviving Plaintiff has standing to pursue these claims because each is a
`
`11
`
`partner in the research operation described throughout. Each Plaintiff is an owner of and has a
`
`12
`
`financial interest in the subject grow, thus has sustained an injury in fact. In addition to the
`
`13
`
`monetary injury, Plaintiffs have suffered injury to recognized constitutional rights without the
`
`14
`
`substantive and procedural due process afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment. The injury is
`
`15
`
`remediable by the relief sought restoration of plaintiffs’ rights, compensation in the form of actual
`
`16
`
`and punitive damages, and an injunction prohibiting Defendant’s from enforcing the offending
`
`17
`
`ordinance.
`
`18
`
`19.
`
`This action is brought without prejudice to plaintiffs’ rights to seek monetary
`
`19
`
`compensatory damages in a subsequent action or Amendment to this Complaint once their right
`
`20
`
`to sue has been perfected under the California Government Tort Claims Act. Plaintiffs herein
`
`21
`
`specifically reserve that right.
`
`22
`
`20.
`
`This action is, at present, brought for injunctive relief, declaratory relief and
`
`23
`
`punitive damages, declaratory fees with respect to §1983 claims, and for return of the unlawfully
`
`24
`
`seized property, not directly for compensatory damages, and therefore the individual defendants
`
`25
`
`are proper defendants, and none of the defendants acting under color of state law are protected by
`
`26
`
`the Eleventh Amendment. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that there is no immunity, qualified or
`
`27
`
`otherwise, where there is bad faith. Armstrong v. Wilson (9th Cir.1997) 124 F.3d 1019, 1026;
`
`28
`
`Pulliam v. Allen (1984) 466 U.S. 522, 523; Vidmar v. Williams (N.D. Cal. 2005) 367 F.Supp.2d
`Page 7 of 34
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1265. Defendants are hereby put on notice that any arguments which unsuccessfully raise these
`
`issues - such as in a 12(b)(6) motion - which are decided based on the aforementioned cases and
`
`their precedent/progeny - will be commented on at trial as further evidence of bad faith in support
`
`of plaintiffs’ punitive damages requests.
`
`21.
`
`This lawsuit joins with the 2014 Farm Bill and the California Industrial Hemp
`
`Farming Act in defining the distinction between hemp and marijuana as turning on the percent of
`
`the tetrahydrocannabinol cannabinoid [“THC”] present in the plant. A plant within the genus
`
`“Cannabis” and species “Sativa L.” possessing 0.3% or lower concentration of THC is defined as
`
`industrial hemp [“hemp”]. A plant within the genus “Cannabis” and species “Sativa L.”
`
`10
`
`possessing greater than 0.3% concentration of THC is defined as marijuana. This definition
`
`11
`
`assures that “hemp” refers to a non-psychoactive plant from which it is impossible to suffer
`
`12
`
`deleterious effects. At no time herein was marijuana involved. The term “cannabis” strictly
`
`13
`
`speaking refers to both hemp and marijuana because they are both “Cannabis Sativa L.” Usage of
`
`14
`
`the term “cannabis” is accordingly nonspecific and fails to distinguish between hemp and
`
`15
`
`marijuana.
`
`16
`
`22.
`
`At all times material throughout the events below parties working on both sides of
`
`17
`
`this case took random samples from the subject grow of 26.19 acres. Plaintiffs are informed and
`
`18
`
`believe and thereon allege that, without exception, every single tested sample has confirmed that
`
`19
`
`there was no “marijuana” in the subject grow and that at all times material every single plant
`
`20
`
`tested was revealed to be hemp. That result was expected because the entire subject crop was at
`
`21
`
`all times purely hemp.
`
`22
`
`23.
`
`Paragraphs 22-25, infra refers to defendants’ knowledge, intent, or state of mind,
`
`23
`
`are alleged on information and belief.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`COMMON ALLEGATIONS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`24.
`
`In October of 1863, the United States Government entered into The Treaty of
`
`26
`
`Ruby Valley with the Sosoni tribe of Nevada, ancestors of the Winnemucca plaintiffs
`
`27
`
`28
`
`25.
`
`On or about October 10, 2017, the San Joaquin County Sheriff [“Sheriff”] entered
`
`onto Winnemucca tribal fee land,onto the subject grow. Once there, they removed the lush green
`Page 8 of 34
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`hemp plants, the valuable and painstakingly developed topsoil, and the surrounding signage.
`
`What was once a thriving agricultural parcel is now barren, dry, and essentially dead. The
`
`entirety of the Native American grow was taken from them.
`
`26.
`
`On that day and subsequent days, Plaintiffs alleged that the “County” acted
`
`improperly at all times material. County Counsel specifically intended to target plaintiffs and
`
`interpreted the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act in such a manner to reach the purposeful
`
`conclusion that plaintiffs were in violation. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege
`
`that “County Officials” intentionally drafted the offending ordinance, ex post facto as new
`
`“emergency” law criminalizing plaintiffs’ existing grow (specifically tailored to allow for its
`
`10
`
`seizure), lied at a public meeting to justify both the passage of the offending ordinance and the
`
`11
`
`urgent need such that plaintiffs would never have adequate notice or be prepared for the seizure.
`
`12
`
`Once approved, Sheriff, under color of state law punished the plaintiffs, effectively acting as all
`
`13
`
`three branches of government that included a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the United
`
`14
`
`States Constitution.
`
`15
`
`27.
`
`As if this weren’t enough, plaintiffs specifically asked for an opportunity to be
`
`16
`
`heard after learning about the offending ordinance just before noon on Thursday, October 5,
`
`17
`
`2017. Within the hour, they were invited to come and share their side of the story at the next
`
`18
`
`public meeting on November 7, 2017. In the meantime, two business days later, on October 10,
`
`19
`
`2017 in violation of the terms on the face of the warrant, the Sheriff personnel were at the grow,
`
`20
`
`“eradicating” the “dangerous” grow they had just criminalized two weeks prior. The most
`
`21
`
`creative among us would be hard pressed to imagine a better set of facts to demonstrate bad faith
`
`22
`
`then telling a party it will be given due process, and purposefully acting before any process was to
`
`23
`
`salvage what they can in order to get thousands of patients back to receiving the cannabidiol
`
`24
`
`cannabinoid [“CBD”] which had finally gave thousands of them hope of one day living
`
`25
`
`asymptomatically. Plaintiffs want the right to grow hemp on their land, consistent with the laws
`
`26
`
`of the United States in violation of the Brown Act pursuant to California Government Code
`
`27
`
`54950, et. seq.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`Page 9 of 34
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiffs FSO and HRM Farms leased a wholly tribal member owned 250-acre
`
`parcel of land in San Joaquin County. On a 26.19 acre portion of that land, plaintiffs planned to
`
`sow hemp. The cultivation of industrial hemp is legal in California, as it is in many other states,
`
`as it in on a federal level. The DEA has announced that hemp falls under the purview of the U.S.
`
`Department of Agriculture. Plaintiffs moved forward with their plans and applied for any and all
`
`paperwork necessary to be permitted to conduct such a grow.
`
`29.
`
`On March 21, 2016 the Nevada Department of Agriculture approved FSO as an
`
`industrial hemp cultivar. A Declaration of Certification of Industrial Hemp Production pursuant to
`
`that approval was issued to FSO on June 20, 2016.
`
`30.
`
`On July 31, 2017, despite technically being exempt from registration, in an effort
`
`to be both transparent to and cooperate with San Joaquin County, plaintiffs registered HRM as a
`
`grower of hemp with the San Joaquin County Agricultural Commission.
`
`31.
`
`Prior to planting the seed, concerned about maximizing yields, about ensuring the
`
`plants thrived without pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides1 and about the many other challenges
`
`involved, plaintiffs, experts in growing (the Winnemucca plaintiffs are descendants of the
`
`Shoshoni - a name which comes from “sosoni” and means “high growing grass”), contacted S.G.
`
`Farms, to purchase, headquartered in Marin County, California.
`
`32.
`
`County Counsel’s allegation that plaintiffs are not within the definition of Food &
`
`Agricultural Code section 81000(c)(2), even if true, would fail to justify County’s actions,
`
`because plaintiffs are authorized to grow hemp pursuant to S.G. Farms’ qualifications under
`
`section 81000(c)(1). This fact would never have been discovered by County Counsel because,
`
`plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege, it was never genuinely sought in the first
`
`place. Had County Counsel afforded plaintiffs a true opportunity to be heard, or had this case
`
`been brought before an independent judiciary on the legality issue, the above facts would have
`
`been disclosed - and County Counsel would not have been able to punish plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are
`
`1 Both marijuana and hemp are accumulator crops, and it would be dangerous to use chemicals
`when cultivating them because the concentrated derivatives would be quite toxic if consumed in
`plant form.
`
`
`Page 10 of 34
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`informed and believe this is why there was no process afforded - because County Counsel or
`
`someone influencing Sakata had malicious intent to seize the subject grow at any cost, without
`
`notice, either to intentionally punish plaintiffs or to convert it to their own financial profit, but in
`
`any case in reckless disregard for plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of the thousands of patients
`
`affected who will have no relief from their respective conditions, including each of the
`
`individually named plaintiffs.
`
`33.
`
`In June of 2017, plaintiffs began cultivation of hemp on the subject grow. This was
`
`known - and on July 31, 2017 it was approved - by the County Agricultural Commission,
`
`identifying HRM as a grower of hemp on that parcel on a maps as “IHEMP.” S.G. Farms went
`
`10
`
`onto the parcel regularly - measuring, sampling, testing moisture, adjusting drainage, etc., then
`
`11
`
`would record its findings. Chief Bills, as operator of the location, was responsible to the rest of
`
`12
`
`plaintiffs for overseeing the grow.
`
`13
`
`34.
`
`On July 18, 2017, after overhearing concerns their parcel may contain an illegal
`
`14
`
`grow, plaintiffs retained Steep Hill Testing Labs, an industry leader, located in Oakland
`
`15
`
`California, to test another hemp sample. Analysis on that sample found THC at 0.21%,
`
`16
`
`comfortably below the 0.3% limit.
`
`17
`
`35.
`
`To minimize the potential for criminal activity, at S.G. Farms suggestion, plaintiffs
`
`18
`
`erected large, clear signage to any whom would come near the parcel making it clear that there
`
`19
`
`was no marijuana growing there - unmistakably identifying it as industrial hemp.
`
`20
`
`36.
`
`From the date the crop were first planted through August 29, 2017, plaintiffs did
`
`21
`
`not receive one complaint, citation, or any other indication that they were causing injury or hazard
`
`22
`
`to anyone, nor were they informed that there was any legal concern with the subject grow. Then,
`
`23
`
`on August 29, 2017, Sakata sent plaintiffs a letter referencing an August 17, 2017 investigation of
`
`24
`
`a “cannabis grow” within the unincorporated area of County, claiming it was prohibited pursuant
`
`25
`
`to County law. The letter further stated that “signage alone is not sufficient to establish an
`
`26
`
`institution’s ability to cultivate industrial hemp for agricultural or academic research in San
`
`27
`
`Joaquin County.” The letter demanded evidence supporting plaintiffs’ claim of being an
`
`28
`
`established research cultivar by September 11, 2017. Because the County can’t quite understand
`Page 11 of 34
`
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`that the word “cannabis” - which may be colloquially used interchangeably with “marijuana” -
`
`doesn’t actually mean “marijuana”, this letter was on its face confusing.
`
`37.
`
`On September 11, 2017, plaintiffs responded to the letter addressing the County's
`
`position at length, disputing both the factual and legal basis for the County’s letter. See Exhibit B,
`
`attached hereto. No one vested Sakata with the power to preside over any qualification
`
`determination hearings. In fact, under the newly enacted California law, this was properly the
`
`domain of the newly established Industrial Hemp Advisory Board. Plaintiffs nonetheless, in their
`
`responsive letter, diligently addressed each request County Counsel made.
`
`38.
`
`On September 12, 2017, San Joaquin County responded to plaintiffs’ letter,
`
`10
`
`declaring the September 11, 2017 letter non-responsive and insufficient to demonstrate an
`
`11
`
`“Established Agricultural Research Institution for the purposes of agricultural or academic
`
`12
`
`research.”
`
`13
`
`39.
`
`On September 15, 2017, plaintiffs again replied offering specific information to
`
`14
`
`support and substantiate, attaching a plethora of documentation as exhibits, including but not
`
`15
`
`limited to: California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education showing American States
`
`16
`
`University as offering a number of “currently approved [educational] programs.”
`
`17
`
`40.
`
`Apparently this third letter was not adequate because on September 26, 2017, the
`
`18
`
`San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors passed and adopted the offending ordinance.
`
`19
`
`41.
`
`The video record of the meeting of September 26, 2017 speaks for itself- and the
`
`20
`
`number of falsehoods disclosed at that meeting was substantial. To identify a few:
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`- The subject grow was described as 500 or 600 acres, considerably more than the
`
`actual 26.19 acres actually grown, causing it to fall under a commercial
`
`category;
`
`- The suggestion that hemp is indistinguishable from marijuana was also made,
`
`when there is a measurable distinction, notably the THC content;
`
`- The notable omission of the fact that hundreds if not thousands of patients have
`
`come to depend on CBD for their health as the only medication that gives them
`
`relief, and there’s a shortage of CBD as a result of the DEA ban on imports;
`Page 12 of 34
`
` THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES
`(CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB)
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 100 Filed 07/28/20 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`- The implication that laboratories are difficult to find when plaintiffs have
`
`handed defendants a binder with test results from local labs all over the bay area
`
`on multiple occasions;
`
`- The statement that the plant must be taken to a lab to test despite that there are
`
`countless products on the market, including on Am

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket