Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 101 Filed 08/11/20 Page 1 of 28
`
`
`DEREK P. COLE, Bar No. 204250
`dcole@colehuber.com
`RONALD J. SCHOLAR, Bar No. 187948
`rscholar@colehuber.com
`COLE HUBER LLP
`2281 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 300
`Roseville, California 95661
`Telephone:
`(916) 780-9009
`Facsimile:
`(916) 780-9050
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`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
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION
`
`
`FREE SPIRIT ORGANICS, NAC, et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY BOARD OF
`SUPERVISORS, et al.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No. 2:17-CV-02271-KJM-EFB
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
`AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`Filed concurrently with:
`Request for Judicial Notice
`
`Hearing on Motion to Dismiss:
`Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller
`Date:
`September 25, 2020
`Time:
`10:00 a.m.
`Crtrm.
`3 (15th Floor)
`
`Trial Date: None
`Action Filed: October 30, 2017
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`00074351.1
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 101 Filed 08/11/20 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 25, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
`
`thereafter as the matter may be heard in Courtroom 3 of the above-entitled Court, located at 501 I
`
`Street, Sacramento, California 95814, Defendants SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY BOARD OF
`
`SUPERVISORS, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COUNSEL, ERIN HIROKO SAKATA, MIGUEL
`
`VILLAPUDUA, KATHERINE MILLER, TOM PATTI, BOB ELLIOTT, CHUCK WINN, and
`
`SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF (collectively “San Joaquin Defendants”) will, and hereby
`
`do, move to dismiss each attempted claim for relief in Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon
`
`which relief can be granted and the individual defendants are entitled to either absolute or
`
`qualified immunity.
`
`On July 30, 2020, undersigned counsel attempted to obtain a stipulated 15 day extension of
`
`time within which to file responsive pleadings. Plaintiffs refused. On August 7, undersigned
`
`counsel sent a meet and confer email to Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the Moton to Dismiss.
`
`Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond.
`
`The Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and
`
`Authorities attached hereto, the Request for Judicial Notice, the file and record in this case, and
`
`such other points and authorities as the Court may deem fit to consider at the hearing.
`
`Dated: August 11, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COLE HUBER LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Ronald J. Scholar
`Ronald J. Scholar
`Attorneys for Defendants
`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
`
`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
`
`00074351.1
`2
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 101 Filed 08/11/20 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................9
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT ................................................................................................9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs .....................................................................................................................9
`
`Defendants ................................................................................................................10
`
`Plaintiffs’ Allegations ..............................................................................................10
`
`III.
`
`LAW AND ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Standard of Review on Motion to Dismiss ..............................................................11
`
`Applicable Law Relating To The Growing Of Industrial Hemp .............................13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 .......................................................13
`
`The U.S. Farm Bill of 2014 ..........................................................................13
`
`The California Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013 .................................14
`
`The Higher Education Act of 1965 ..............................................................15
`
`San Joaquin County Ordinance 4497 ...........................................................15
`
`C.
`
`The Individual Members Of The Board Of Supervisors And County
`Counsel Sakata Are Immune From Suit For Their Legislative Activity ..................16
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiffs Are Neither EARI’s Nor Institutions of Higher Education ......................17
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`FSO, CSA and HRM Are Not EARI’s .............................................17
`
`ASU Is Not An Institution Of Higher Education .............................17
`
`FSO, ASU, CSA and HRM Are Commercial Growers ...................18
`
`E.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Suffered A Constitutional Deprivation ....................................18
`
`1.
`
`Ordinance 4497 Is Not Preempted (First Cause of Action) .........................18
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`Ordinance 4497 is not preempted by federal law .............................18
`
`Ordinance 4497 is not preempted by state law.................................19
`
`Ordinance 4497 is Not Unconstitutionally Vague (Second Cause of
`Action) ..........................................................................................................19
`
`Ordinance 4497 Is Not A Bill of Attainder (Third Cause of Action) ..........20
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`00074351.1
`3
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`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 101 Filed 08/11/20 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
`
`Page
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Ordinance 4497 Is Not An Ex Post Facto Law (Third Cause of
`Action) ..........................................................................................................20
`
`Plaintiffs Were Not Denied Due Process (Fourth Cause of Action) ............21
`
`The Seizure Was Lawful (Fifth Cause of Action) ........................................22
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`The Warrant was Sufficiently Specific ............................................22
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Plead Facts Showing Judicial Deception ..............22
`
`There Was No Equal Protection Violation (Ninth Cause of Action) ...........23
`
`Plaintiffs’ Have Failed to Plead a Monell Claim (Seventh Cause of
`Action) ..........................................................................................................24
`
`The County Did Not Violate The Brown Act (Eighth Cause of
`Action) ..........................................................................................................25
`
`10.
`
`Declaratory Relief Is Unsupported (Sixth Cause of Action) ........................25
`
`F.
`
`The Individual Defendants Are Entitled To Qualified Immunity ............................25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Individual Defendants Who Relied On 4497 Are Qualifiedly
`Immune .........................................................................................................27
`
`The Law Applicable to the Growing and Harvesting of Cannabis
`Sativa L Was Not Clearly Established in Favor of Plaintiffs ......................27
`
`(a) What Qualifies as an EARI Was Not Clearly Established ...............27
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................28
`
`00074351.1
`4
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`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
`
`ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
`
`2281 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 300
`
`COLE HUBER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 101 Filed 08/11/20 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`
`AE ex rel. Hernandez v. Cty. of Tulare,
`666 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................................... 25
`Aitchison v. Raffiani,
`708 F.2d 96 (3d Cir. 1983) .......................................................................................................... 16
`Anderson v. Creighton,
`483 U.S. 635 (1987) .................................................................................................................... 26
`Arizona v. United States,
`567 U.S. 387 (2012) .................................................................................................................... 18
`Ashcroft v. al–Kidd,
`563 U.S. [731], 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) ......................................................... 26
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................................. 12, 25
`Baker v. Racansky,
`887 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1989) ....................................................................................................... 26
`Beazell v. Ohio,
`269 U.S. 167 (1925) .................................................................................................................... 20
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................................. 12, 17
`Bogan v. Scott-Harris,
`523 U.S. 44 (1998) ...................................................................................................................... 16
`California Teachers Ass'n v. State Bd. of Educ.,
`271 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................... 19
`City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health,
`56 Cal.4th 729 (2013) .................................................................................................................. 19
`Cmty. House, Inc. v. City of Boise, Idaho,
`623 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................................... 16
`Collins v. Youngblood,
`497 U.S. 37 (1990) ...................................................................................................................... 20
`County of Sacramento v. Lewis,
`523 U.S. 833 (1998) .................................................................................................................... 21
`Denton v. Hernandez,
`504 U.S. 25 (1992) ...................................................................................................................... 12
`Dittman v. California,
`191 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 1999) ..................................................................................................... 27
`Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp,
`965 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992) ....................................................................................................... 20
`Galbraith v. Cty. of Santa Clara,
`307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................................... 22
`Gallup Med Flight, LLC v. Builders Tr. of New Mexico,
`240 F. Supp. 3d 1161 (D.N.M. 2017) ......................................................................................... 18
`Gerhart v. Lake County, Mont.,
`637 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................... 23, 24
`Grossman v. City of Portland,
`33 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 1994) ....................................................................................................... 27
`
`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
`
`00074351.1
`5
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
`
`2281 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 300
`
`COLE HUBER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 101 Filed 08/11/20 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont.)
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
`457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ............................................................... 26
`Herrera v. City of Sacramento,
`2013 WL 3992497 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2013) .............................................................................. 24
`Hervey v. Estes,
`65 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 1995) ......................................................................................................... 22
`Human Life of Washington Inc. v. Brumsickle,
`624 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................................... 19
`Ileto v. Glock Inc.,
`349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................... 11
`Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska,
`673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982) ....................................................................................................... 12
`Kirby v. Cty. of Fresno,
`242 Cal.App.4th 940 (2015) ........................................................................................................ 19
`Malley v. Briggs,
`475 U.S. 335, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) ............................................................... 26
`Mendoza v. Block,
`27 F.3d 1357 (9th Cir. 1994) ....................................................................................................... 26
`Miranda v. Clark Cty., Nevada,
`279 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................................... 12
`Mitchell v. Forsyth,
`472 U.S. 511 (1985) .................................................................................................................... 26
`Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv.,
`436 U.S. 658 (1978) .................................................................................................................... 24
`Mullenix v. Luna,
`––– U.S. –––, 136 S.Ct. 305 (2015) ............................................................................................ 26
`Nixon v. Adm'r of Gen. Servs.,
`433 U.S. 425 (1977) .................................................................................................................... 20
`North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica,
`526 F.3d 478 (9th Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................................... 23
`Palm Valley Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Design MTC,
`85 Cal.App.4th 553 (2000) .......................................................................................................... 17
`Papasan v. Allain,
`478 U.S. 265 (1986) .................................................................................................................... 12
`Pearson v. Callahan,
`555 U.S. 223 (2009) .................................................................................................................... 26
`Reno v. Flores,
`507 U.S. 292 (1993) .................................................................................................................... 21
`Romero v. Kitsap Cty.,
`931 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1991) ....................................................................................................... 26
`Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles,
`4 Cal.4th 893 (1993) .................................................................................................................... 19
`Shwarz v. United States,
`234 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2000) ....................................................................................................... 12
`
`00074351.1
`6
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`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
`
`ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
`
`2281 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 300
`
`COLE HUBER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 101 Filed 08/11/20 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont.)
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City of Simi Valley,
`70 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 1995) ....................................................................................................... 26
`Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petr. Co.,
`339 U.S. 667 (1950) .................................................................................................................... 25
`Smith v. Almada,
`640 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2011) ....................................................................................................... 22
`Somers v. Apple, Inc.,
`729 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 12
`Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,
`266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................................... 12
`Stanton v. Sims,
`571 U.S. 3 (2013) ........................................................................................................................ 26
`Starr v. Baca,
`652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................... 25
`Taso v. Desert Palace, Inc.,
`698 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 24
`Teixeria v. County of Alameda,
`822 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................... 24
`Tenney v. Brandhove,
`341 U.S. 367 (1951) .................................................................................................................... 16
`Thornton v. City of St. Helens,
`425 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................................... 21
`Todd v. United States,
`849 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1988) ....................................................................................................... 26
`Trevino v. Gates,
`99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996) ......................................................................................................... 25
`United States v. Brock,
`667 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1982) ..................................................................................................... 22
`United States v. Leon,
`468 U.S. 897 (1984) .................................................................................................................... 22
`United States v. Lovett,
`328 U.S. 303 (1946) .................................................................................................................... 20
`United States v. Pickard,
`100 F. Supp. 3d 981 (E.D. Cal. 2015) ......................................................................................... 13
`United States v. Towne,
`997 F.2d 537 (9th Cir. 1993) ....................................................................................................... 22
`United States v. White Plume,
`447 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2006) ..................................................................................................... 13
`Village of Willowbrook v. Olech,
`528 U.S. 562 (2000) .............................................................................................................. 23, 24
`Weaver v. Graham,
`450 U.S. 24 (1981) ...................................................................................................................... 20
`Young v. City of Visalia,
`687 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ....................................................................................... 24
`
`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
`
`00074351.1
`7
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
`
`2281 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 300
`
`COLE HUBER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 101 Filed 08/11/20 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont.)
`
`Statutes
`
`7 U.S.C. § 5940 ................................................................................................................... 13, 14, 27
`20 U.S.C. § 1001 ................................................................................................................. 14, 15, 17
`21 U.S.C. § 802(16) ........................................................................................................................ 13
`21 U.S.C. § 812(c) ........................................................................................................................... 13
`21 U.S.C. § 822-823 .................................................................................................................. 13, 27
`Cal. Const. art. XI, § 7 ..................................................................................................................... 19
`Cal. Corp. Code § 2205 ................................................................................................................... 17
`Cal. Gov. Code § 54960.1(b), (c) .................................................................................................... 25
`Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11018.5 ............................................................................................. 14
`California Food and Agriculture Code (“F&A”) section 81000(c)(1) ........................................ 9, 10
`California Government Code § 65858 ...................................................................................... 15, 21
`U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1 ............................................................................................................ 20
`U.S. Const. art I, § 9, cl 3 ................................................................................................................ 20
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 ............................................................................................................................ 25
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ............................................................................................................... 2, 11
`
`Regulations
`
`Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp,
`81 Fed. Reg. 53395-01 (Aug. 12, 2016) ................................................................................ 13, 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`00074351.1
`8
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`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
`
`ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
`
`2281 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 300
`
`COLE HUBER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 101 Filed 08/11/20 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) contests the passage of San Joaquin County
`
`Ordinance 4497 (“4497”) which restricted the growth of, and over the seizure under a search
`
`warrant of, a crop of the plant Cannabis sativa L (hereinafter “Crop” or “Grow”). The Plaintiffs,
`
`claim to be research institution partners and sue the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors
`
`(“County”) including the individual members of the County Board (“Board”), the County’s legal
`
`counsel, and its Sheriff’s Department. The TAC should be dismissed because while it is long on
`
`conclusory accusations, it is short on material, well pled facts that would establish a factual basis
`
`causes of action. Additionally, the individual defendants are entitled to absolute or qualified
`
`immunity. Finally, it should be noted that the Crops in question were illegal at every level. The
`
`Motion to Dismiss should be granted without leave to amend.1
`
`II. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`A.
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`
`Plaintiff Free Spirit Organics, NAC (“FSO”), is alleged to be a Nevada corporation and
`
`tribal owned Native American company with tribal sovereignty. FSO is identified as the manager
`
`and operator of the 26.19 acre plot of land located in San Joaquin County on which the Crop was
`
`grown. FSO is also alleged to be a research organization pursuant to California Food and
`
`Agriculture Code (“F&A”) section 81000(c)(1). TAC ¶ 10. American States University (“ASU”)
`
`alleges that it is a California institution of higher learning under F&A section 81000(c)(1) and is
`
`an unincorporated association. TAC ¶ 11. Plaintiff Cannabis Science Inc. (“CSI”) alleges it is a
`
`publicly traded Nevada corporation. It alleges it is a research organization pursuant to F&A
`
`
`1 Defendants previously filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. ECF
`No. 37. The Court dismissed the San Joaquin County District Attorney and took the remainder
`under submission subject to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of standing. During the hearing,
`the parties reached an agreement on the standing issues save for former plaintiff S.G. Farms which
`was later dismissed by the Court for lack of standing. In an Order dated July 6, 2020, the Court
`denied the balance of the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and the remaining plaintiffs were
`“granted one final opportunity to amend the complaint.” ECF No. 99 (Order p. 13:21-22.).
`
`00074351.1
`9
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`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 101 Filed 08/11/20 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`section 81000(c)(1). TAC ¶ 12. HRM Farms (“HRM”) is a California corporation that alleges
`
`HRM is in the agricultural business and conducts unspecified agricultural research. TAC ¶ 13. The
`
`Plaintiffs claim to be partners in a “research operation” and Crop owners. TAC ¶¶ 10-13.
`
`B.
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`Defendants are the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, Miguel Villapudua,
`
`Katherine Miller, Tom Patti, Bob Elliott, and Chuck Winn. TAC ¶ 14. Also named is Erin Hiroko
`
`Sakata, an attorney and employee of County of San Joaquin, Office of County Counsel.2 The TAC
`
`also names the San Joaquin County Sheriff as a group of public employees. SAC ¶ 16.
`
`C.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS
`
`Stripped of its numerous conclusory accusations, the TAC alleges that FSO and HRM
`
`“leased a wholly tribal owned” 3 250-acre parcel in San Joaquin County. The Grow was on a
`
`26.19-acre portion of the land. TAC ¶ 28. In June 2017, Plaintiffs began growing hemp on the
`
`land. TAC ¶ 33. Plaintiffs claim that their hemp growing activity was registered and approved by
`
`the County of San Joaquin Agricultural Commissioner yet fail to plead any facts beyond the
`
`conclusory statement or attach documentation of such approvals. TAC ¶¶ 30, 33. They partially
`
`describe a “Declaration of Certification of Industrial Hemp Production, Research and
`
`Development Program” from the Nevada Department of Agriculture (“NDA”). TAC ¶ 29; Request
`
`for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) Exh. 1 (Bills’ Decl., Exh. A, pp. 2-3.) The Certification expired on
`
`June 20, 2017 and was limited to 4 acres of land at a specified location in Nevada.
`
`The Crop was tested twice showing THC levels below .3 percent. TAC ¶¶ 34, 44. Plaintiffs
`
`also put up signage indicating that the Crop was hemp and not marijuana. TAC ¶ 35.
`
`Between August 29, 2017 and September 15, 2016, one or more Plaintiffs exchanged
`
`correspondence with Ms. Sakata at the San Joaquin County Counsel’s Office regarding the
`
`
`2 Plaintiffs fail to allege if the individual defendants are sued in official or individual
`capacities. Plaintiffs allege that the Board members were acting “within their official capacities”
`but not the capacity in which they are sued. TAC ¶ 14. Later, Plaintiffs state that “Defendants are
`being sued in their personal capacities….” TAC ¶ 88.
`
` 3
`
` It is unclear what this means. There is no allegation that the property is sovereign Native
`American land held in trust by the United States government.
`
`00074351.1
`10
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`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
`
`ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
`
`2281 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 300
`
`COLE HUBER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 101 Filed 08/11/20 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`legality of the Crop. SAC ¶¶ 36-39. On September 26, 2017, County Board conducted an public
`
`hearing regarding and passed 4497, which established a moratorium on the cultivation of
`
`industrial hemp by “Established Agricultural Research Institutions” (“EARI”). TAC ¶¶ 40-41;
`
`RJN Exs. 1, 2. Plaintiffs allege that inaccurate information was provided to the Board regarding:
`
`the size of the Crop; the distinguishability of marijuana from hemp; that “patients” depend on
`
`CBD; that criminal activity may be associated with the growing of hemp; and that small marijuana
`
`grows are hard to find. TAC ¶ 41. Ms. Sakata allegedly presented false evidence at the September
`
`26, 2017 Board meeting and conspired with county officials to pass 4497. TAC ¶ 15.
`
`On September 28, 2017, Ms. Sakata sent a letter to Plaintiffs attaching 4497 and advising
`
`the Crop was in violation of 4497. TAC ¶ 42. On October 5, 2017, after 4497 had been passed,
`
`Roger Agajanian, the Administrative Dean from ASU telephoned “the Board” requested “a
`
`hearing.” Mr. Agajanian emailed the Board Clerk “request[ing] to be heard on October 24, 2017.
`
`He was told it would be on the agenda for the Board meeting on November 7, 2017. TAC ¶ 44.
`
`Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he Sheriff” entered the Grow on Tuesday (October 10, 2017) with
`
`a search warrant (“Warrant”). Plaintiffs claim that the search warrant contained false facts sworn
`
`out by “Agent Michael Eastin” and was signed by an unknown Magistrate. They allege the
`
`warrant is inadequate because it does not: identify Agent Eastin’s agency; state his expertise,
`
`experience and familiarity with the matter of the warrant; provide a basis which led him to believe
`
`that the Crop was illegal; state that Agent Eastin had visited the Crop on two prior occasions; and
`
`does not mention Plaintiffs’ proffered research information provided. Plaintiffs allege the warrant
`
`was executed when it was dark despite night entry being prohibited. Plaintiffs also allege that the
`
`warrant does not permit any seizure of property, was not correctly returned and that no inventory
`
`of the items seized was prepared. TAC ¶ 45.
`
`A.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ON MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`III. LAW AND ARGUMENT
`
`A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of
`
`the allegations in the complaint. Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1199–1200 (9th Cir. 2003).
`
`Dismissal is proper when a complaint “either: (1) lacks a cognizable legal theory or (2) fails to
`
`00074351.1
`11
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`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
`
`ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
`
`2281 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 300
`
`COLE HUBER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-02271-KJM-EFB Document 101 Filed 08/11/20 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953,
`
`959 (9th Cir. 2013). Review is limited to the contents of the complaint, documents incorporated by
`
`reference in the complaint and matters subject to judicial notice. Sprewell v. Golden State
`
`Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).
`
`The court “must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and must
`
`accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.” Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435
`
`(9th Cir. 2000). However, this liberal review does not include the court supplying “essential
`
`elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673
`
`F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Additionally, the court cannot “accept as true allegations that are
`
`merely conclusory, un