Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.6 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.7 Page 2 of 35
`
`1 S. Edward Wicker
`11440 W. Bernardo Court, Suite 300
`2 San Diego, CA 92127
`Work: (760) 735-6100
`3 Email: edward@ewickerlaw.com
`
`4 S. EDWARD WICKER, Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`ELECTROIUCALL Y FILED
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Diego
`09/22/2020 at 02: 17 :29 Pl~I
`Clerk of the Superior Court
`By Gregory Hornick, Deputy Clerk
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
`
`NORTH COUNTY DIVISION
`
`Case No.: 37-2020-0(1034326-C U-C R-N C
`
`COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 42
`U.S.C. § 1983; VIOLATION OF
`CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION;
`CONVERSION; DAMAGES
`
`Assigned to Judge:
`
`11 AGRO DYNAMICS, LLC a Wyoming Limited
`Liability Company,
`
`vs.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`12
`
`13
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINSTRA TION,
`14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY, and SPECIAL AGENTS)
`PAUL GELLES, ERIC BALL, KIERAN
`)
`15 GRACIA, MARSHA DA WE, ROSS VAN
`)
`NOSTRAND, AND JEREMY FEUZ; FRANK
`)
`16 HASKELL, ANDREW AGUILAR, JASON
`)
`STEIN, TIMOTHY SMITH, MICHAEL
`)
`17 ASTORGA, CHRISTOPHER MORRIS, SGT.
`)
`STEVE BODINE, DET. JUSTIN MOORE, DET.)
`18 DWAYNE PRICKETT, DET. CHRISTOPHER. )
`PEREZ, AND DET. RICARDO ANDRADE; and )
`19 DOES 1 to 50 inclusive,
`)
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Defendants.
`
`INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE
`
`On or about December 20, 2018, the Federal Farm bill authorized_ the legal cultivation of
`
`24 hemp. On August 22, 2019, Plaintiffs herein obtained a Registration Issuance from the County of
`
`25 San Diego for the legal cultivation of hemp on their premises. Relying on this permit, Plaintiffs
`
`26 expended considerable time and money and planted approximately 3000 hemp plants that,
`
`27 according to a laboratory test, had less than .3% THC. On September 10, 2019 a law enforcement
`
`28 · officer, Defendant'Paul Gelles, conducted aerial reconnaissance in support of marijuana eradication
`
`:- I -
`Compliant for Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Violation of California Constitution; Conversion; Damages
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.8 Page 3 of 35
`
`1 operations in the area. Based on the officer's observations of what appeared to be growing
`
`2 marijuana and the failure of law enforcement to make any investigation of San Diego County
`
`3
`
`records which would have revealed the hemp Registration Issuance, a search warrant was issued on
`
`4 September 11, 2019. The next day, September 12, 2019, law enforcement officers executed the
`
`5
`
`6
`
`search warrant. Upori their arrival on the premises, a tenant in possession advised the officers that
`
`there was a legal Registration Issuance from the County of San Diego for the hemp growing on the
`
`7 premises. Law enforcement disregarded this information and continued to seize and destroy all
`
`8 plants that appeared to be marijuana.
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`. Plaintiff Agro Dynamics, LLC is limited liability company organized under the laws
`
`of the State of Wyoming and re.gistered with the California Secretary of State to conduct business
`
`in California.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Drug Enforcement Administration is now and, at all times herein alleged, ·
`
`is, a public entity organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant San Diego County is now, and, at all times herein alleged, is, a public
`
`entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Special Agent Paul Gelles is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was a
`
`Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On information and belief, Special Agent
`
`Gelles is a citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Special Agent Eric Ball is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was a
`
`Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On information and belief, Special Agent
`
`Ball is a citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Special Agent Kieran Garcia is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was
`
`a Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On information and belief, Special
`
`Agent Garcia is a. citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`
`- 2 -
`Compliant for Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Violation of California Constitution; Conversion; Damages
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.9 Page 4 of 35
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Special Agent Marsha Dawe is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was
`
`a Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On information and belief, Special
`
`Agent Dawe is a citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Special Agent Ross Van.Nostrand is now, and, at all times herein alleged,
`
`was a Special Agent of the Drug Enforce1nent Administration. On information and belief, Special
`
`Agent Van Nostrand is a citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San
`
`Diego.
`
`9.
`
`Defendqnt Special Agent Jeremy Feuz is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was a
`
`Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On inform~tion and belief, Special Agent
`
`. 10
`
`Feuz is a citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego .
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`· 26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`10.
`
`Defendant Frank Haskell is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was a Task Force
`
`Officer of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On information and belief, Frank Haskell is a
`
`citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`I
`11.
`
`Defendant Andrew Aguilar is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was a Task Force
`
`Officer of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On information and belief, Andrew Aguilar is a
`
`citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant Jason Stein is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was a Task Force
`
`Officer of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On information and belief, Jason Stein is a
`
`citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant Timothy Smith is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was a Task Force
`
`Officer of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On information and belief, Mr. Smith is a
`
`citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant Michael Astorga is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was a Task Force
`
`Officer of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On information and belief, Mr. Astorga is a.
`
`citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of.San Diego.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant Christopher Morris is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was a Task
`
`Force Officer of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On information and 'belief, Mr. Morris is
`
`a citizen of the State of California and a r~sident of the County of San Diego.
`
`- 3 -
`Compliant for Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Violation of California Constitution; Conversion; Damages
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.10 Page 5 of 35
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Steve Bodine is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was a sergeant of
`
`the San Diego Sheriffs Department. On information and belief, Mr. Bodine is a citizen of the
`
`State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant Justin Moore is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was a detective of
`
`the San Diego Sheriffs Department. On information and belief, Mr. Moore is a citizen of the
`
`State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant Dwayne Prickett is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was a detective
`
`of the San Diego Sheriffs Department. On information and belief, Mr. Prickett is a citizen of the
`
`State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant Christophe1; Perez is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was a detective
`
`of the San Diego Sheriffs Department. On information and belief, Mr. Perez is a citizen of the
`
`State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant Ricardo Andrade is now, and, at all times herein alleged, was a detective
`
`of the San Diego Sheriffs Depa11ment. On information and belief, Mr. Andrade is a citizen of the
`
`State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`
`21. DOES 1 through 50 are unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will amend the Complaint to
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`identify them when their identities are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of
`
`18 DOES 1 through 50 was the principal, parent, subsidiary, affiliate, agent, servant, employee,
`
`19 employer, director, officer, co-conspirator, shareholder, director, partner, joint-venturer, and/or co-
`
`20 ventm'er of his/her/its co-defendants and, in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the
`
`21. course and scope of his/her/its employment and/or within his/her/its authority, and/or in concert
`
`22 with and/or with the permission, ratification, or consent of his/her/its co-defendants, or otherwise
`
`23
`
`as a tortfeasor. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of DOES 1 through 50 is responsible in
`
`24
`
`some manner for the occurrences and omissions herein· alleged, and _that Plaintiffs damages as
`
`25 herein alleged were proximately caused by their conduct.
`
`26
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that each of the defendants
`
`27 designated herein as DOE took part in and pa1iicipated with Defendants in all matters referred to
`
`28 herein and was in some manner responsible for the injuries and losses suffered by Plaintiff.
`
`- 4 -
`Compliant for Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Violation of California Constitution; Conversion; Damages
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.11 Page 6 of 35
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that at all times herein
`
`2 mentioned each of the Defendants was the agent, servant and/or employee or occupied other
`
`3
`
`relationships with each of the other named Defendants and at all times herein mentioned acted
`
`4 within the course and scope of said agency and/or employment and/or other relationship and each
`
`5 other Defendant has ratified, consented to, and approved the acts of his agents, employees, and
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`representatives, and that each actively participated in, aided and abetted, or assisted one another in
`
`the commission of the wrongdoing alleged in this Complaint.
`
`VENUE
`
`24.
`
`The claims alleged herein arose, in San Diego County, State of California. Therefore,
`
`venue properly lies in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San
`
`Diego. (See California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 393 and 395(a)).
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff timely filed an administrative claim with the Drug Enforcement
`
`Administration and the individually named defendants, within six months of the actions giving
`
`rise to this suit. The administrative claim was submitted on January 30, 2020. The claim was
`
`rejected, and this suit is properly filed within six months of that rejection.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff timely filed an administrative claim with San Diego County and the
`
`individually riamed defendants pursuant to California Government Code § 910, within six months
`
`of the actions giving rise to this suit. The administrative claim was submitted on January 30, 2020.
`
`The claim was rejected on April 2, 2020. This suit is properly filed within six months of that
`
`rejection. See Cal. Gov't Code § 945.6.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`27.
`
`On January 1, 2017, the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act became effective,
`
`which permits the cultivation of hemp. (See Cal. Food & Agr. Code §81006)
`
`28.
`
`On December 20, 2018, the Agriculture Improvement Farming Act ("Farm Bill")
`
`was signed into law by the United States Government, which legalized the regulated production of
`
`hemp. (See 7 U.S.C. 1639o-1639s)
`
`29.
`
`Industrial hemp or H·emp is defined as "an agricultural product, ~hether growing or
`
`not, that is limited to types of the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including
`
`- 5 -
`Compliant for Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Violation of California Constitution; Conversion; Damages
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.12 Page 7 of 35
`
`seeds of the plant and all derivatives, extracts, the resin extracted from any part of the plant,
`
`cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isorners, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol
`
`concentration of no more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis". (See Cal. Food & Agr. Code
`
`§81000(a)(6)).
`
`30.
`
`Hemp, as defined in the Agriculture Improvement Farming Act, "means the plant
`
`Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives,
`
`· extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a
`
`cielta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis".
`
`(See 7 U.S.C. §16390).
`
`31.
`
`Cannabis is defined as "all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis
`
`indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin, whether crude
`
`. or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt,
`
`derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin." Further, under this definition
`
`"cannabis" does not mean "industrial hemp". (See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §26001 (f)).
`
`32.
`
`Additionally, the Control Substance Act defines marijuana as "all parts of the
`
`Cannabis Sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any pa1i of
`
`such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such
`
`plant, its seeds or resin. Further, the Act provides that the term "marihuana" does not include
`
`hemp as defined in 7 U.S.C. § 16390. (See 21 U.S.C. § 802(16)).
`
`33.
`
`· Under both California law and federal law, industrial hemp and "Marijuana" are two
`
`separate, legally distinct choses.
`
`34.
`
`On August 1, 2019, Plaintiff signed a lease agreement for 7250 Rainbow Heights
`
`Rd., Fallbrook, CA 92028. Tenants (herein "Tenant") occupied the land and cultivated hemp
`
`according to the legal permit to do so.
`
`35.
`
`On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff received a Registration Issuance from Defendant,
`
`County of San Diego, for outdoor hemp cultivation and storage at 7250 Rainbow Heights Rd.,
`
`Fallbrook, CA 92028. Plaintiffs registration number is 37-1900570.
`
`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
`
`- 6 -
`Compliant for Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Violation of California Constitution; Conversion; Damages
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.13 Page 8 of 35
`
`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
`
`36.
`
`. From approximately August of2019 through September 12th, 2019, Plaintiff
`
`cultivated hemp plants at 7250 Rainbow Heights Rd., Fallbrook, CA 92028. At all relevant times,
`
`· these plants had a laboratory analysis finding of less than 0.01 percent a delta-9
`
`tetrahydrocannabinol concentration. Therefore, all these plants cultivated by Plaintiff was legally
`
`"Industrial Hemp" and not "Marijuana".
`
`37 .
`
`At all relevant times the fr1dustrial hemp cultivated at 7250 Rainbow Heights Rd.,
`
`. Fall brook, CA 92028 was the sole property of AGRO DYNAMICS, LLC, and no other third party
`
`had any claim of right to the industrial hemp. At all relevant times, only AGRO DYNAMICS;
`
`LLC had the right to possession of the industrial hemp.
`
`38.
`
`On September 12, 2019, Plaintiff AGRO DYNAMICS, LLC had approximately
`
`three thousand (3,000) industrial hemp plants cultivating at 7250 Rainbow Heights Rd., Fallbrook,
`
`CA 92028.
`
`39.
`
`On September 12, 2019, Defendants, and/or other law enforcement officers acting
`
`under color of law, executed Search Warrant Number 61976 (herein "War1·ant") for the property
`
`located at 7250 Rainbow Heights Rd., Fallbrook, CA 92028 (herein "Property").
`
`40.
`
`The Affidavit for this Search Warrant was based on a statement by Defendant,
`
`Special Agerit Paul Gelles, dated September 11, 2019.
`
`4l.
`
`The Warrant is facially invalid and does not comply with the requirements of
`
`California law.
`
`42.
`
`The Warrant authorized, in relevant part, the seizure of the following:
`
`a. Bulk marijuana;
`
`b. Processed marijuana;
`
`c. Marijuana trimmings;
`
`d. Marijuana cigarettes;
`
`e. Marijuana plants, seeds and derivatives of marijuana;
`
`f.
`
`Items used in the use, cultivation, sale and transfer of marijuana ..
`
`43.
`
`The Warrant did not authorize the seizure of i11dustrial hemp.
`
`- 7 -
`Compliant for Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Violation of California Constitution; Conversion; Damages
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.14 Page 9 of 35
`
`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
`
`44.
`
`The Warrant did not state any efforts taken by the affiant or any law enforcement
`
`personnel to contact the County of San Diego to determine if there was a valid registration for a
`
`hemp cultivation on the premises.
`
`45.
`
`. Defendants, and/or other persons or agencies acting at their direction seized AGRO
`
`DYNAMICS, LLC's industrial hemp that'was being cultivated at 7250 Rainbow Heights Rd.,·
`
`Fallbrook, CA 92028.
`
`46. While Defendants were executing the Warrant on the Property, Defendants, and/or
`
`other persons or agencies acting at their direction were advised by the tenant that the plants in
`
`question were a legal cultivation duly registered by the County of San Diego. The tenant further
`
`offered to show law enforcement officers acting on behalf of Defendants proof of registration
`
`issued by the County of San Diego. The Defendants and/or other persons or agencies acting at
`
`their direction explicitly rejected these warnings and proceeded to seize Plaintiffs property.
`
`Therefore, under the terms of the Warrant, the Defendants did not have the lawful authority to
`
`seize the industrial hemp.
`
`47.
`
`On information and belief, the Defendants have destroyed Plaintiffs industrial
`
`hemp.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`At all relevant times, all Defendants have been acting under color of law.
`
`Plaintiffs industrial hemp has a value of not less than $3,450,671, or an amount to
`
`be proven at trial.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`42 U.S.C. § 1983-Fourth Amendment
`Unreasonable Search and Seizure/Destruction
`(All Defendants)
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff fully incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference herein.
`
`42. U.S.C. § 1983 states, "Every person, who under color of any statute, 01;dinance,
`
`regulation, custom or usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes
`
`to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to
`
`the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and law shall be
`
`- 8 -
`Compliant fo~ Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Violation of California Constitution; Conversion; Damages
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.15 Page 10 of 35
`
`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
`
`liable to the party injured in an action in law, suit in equity, or other appropriate proceeding for
`
`redress ..... "
`
`52.
`
`All_individual Defendants to this claim, at all relevant times, were acting under the
`
`color of State law in their capacity as officers and/or agents of the Drug Enforcement
`
`Administration, County of San Diego Sheriff's Department, and/or unknown law enforcement,
`
`and their acts or omissions were conducted in the scope of their employment
`
`53.
`
`The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the citizens from
`
`unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a warrant to search a person or seize anything be
`
`supported by probable cause. The seizure of Plaintiff's industrial hemp by the Defendants when
`
`executing the Warrant was not supported by probable cause and was therefore obtained in
`
`violation of Plaintiff's rights protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States
`
`Constitution.
`
`54.
`
`The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the citizens from
`
`unreasonable searches and seizures and requires anything to be seized to be particularly described
`
`in a search warrant.
`
`55.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants willfully, and maliciously violated Plaintiff's
`
`right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment by, among
`
`other things: (1) failing to ascertain the legal status of the industrial hemp cultivation at 7250
`
`Rainbow Heights Rd., Fallbrook, CA 92028; (2) not heeding to the tenant's advisement that the
`
`industrial hemp plants were a legal cultivation lawfully registered by the County of San Diego; (3)
`
`recklessly disregarding the tenant's offer to show Defendants proof of registration issued by the
`
`County of San Diego; (4) seizing Plaintiff's lawfully registered industrial hemp plants; (5) failing
`
`to provide adequate training for officers to distinguish marijuana from legal hemp.
`
`56.
`
`The Warrant authorized the seizure of marijuana, not industrial hemp. Defendants
`
`knowingly,-intentionally_, and/or negligently took Plaintiff's industrial hemp, in violation of
`
`Plaintiffs rights protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United State~ Constitution.
`
`57.
`
`Given the gross insufficiency of the search warrant and the gross _deviations from its
`
`scope, the ~eizure is an unlawful violation·of the Fourth Amendment.
`
`- 9 -
`Compliant for Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Violation of California Constitution; Conversion; Damages
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.16 Page 11 of 35
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`1 o
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`58.
`
`As a proximate result of these acts and/or omission, Plaintiff have suffered damages
`
`in an amount to be proven at trial, presently estimated to be no less than $3,450,671.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`42 U.S.C. § 1983-Fifth Amendment
`Taking of Private Property Without Just Compensation
`(All Defendants)
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference herein.
`
`42. U.S.C. § 1983 states, "Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance,
`
`regulation, custom or usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes
`
`· to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to
`
`the deprivation of any rights, privileges or iminunities secured by the constitution and law shall be
`
`liable to the party injured in an action in law, suit in equity, or other appropriate proceeding for
`
`redress ..... "
`
`61.
`
`All individual Defendants to this claim, at all relevant times, were acting under the
`
`color of State law in their capacity as officers and/or agents of the Drug Enforcement
`
`Administration, County of San Diego Sheriffs Department, and/or unknown law enforcement,
`
`and their acts or omissions were conducted in the scope of their employment.
`
`62.
`
`The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the taking of
`
`private property for public use without just compensation.
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff had a protectable property interest in its industrial hemp crops which the
`
`Defendants intentionally destroyed, through the unlawful seizing and destruction Plaintiffs
`
`lawfully registered industrial hemp plants.
`
`64.
`
`Defendants' conduct, seizing the Plaintiffs industrial hemp plants, constituted a
`
`taking of Plaintiffs property under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
`
`65.
`
`The Defendants never provided any compensation to Plaintiff for the taking of
`
`Plaintiffs property.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`Defendants did not take Plaintiffs industrial hemp for public use.
`
`On information and belief, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the County of San
`
`Diego Sheriffs Office, the County of San Diego, and other unknown law enforcement personnel
`
`- 10 -
`Compliant for Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Violation of California Constitution; Conversion; Damages
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.17 Page 12 of 35
`
`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
`
`and/or agencies willfully and maliciously (1) intentionally authorized or directed the individual
`
`Defendants and/or law enforcement officers acting at their direction, to undertake the actions that
`
`violated Plaintiffs rights; (2) ratified the actions the individual Defendants and/or law
`
`enforcement officers acting at their direction, took to violate Plaintiffs rights; and (3) failed to
`
`adequately train the individual Defendants and/or law enforcement officers acting at their
`
`direction to distinguish between industrial hemp and cannabis.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OFACTION
`Violation of Cal. Const. Art. I. § 13-Unreasonable Search and Seizure
`(All Defendants)
`·
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference herein.
`
`As a duly registered California Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff has a right to be
`
`secure in its prope1iy against unreasonable searches and seizures, recognized under the California ·
`
`Constitution, Art. I, § 13.
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiffs hemp business is, and, at all times relevant herein, licensed by the_ County
`
`of San Diego to cultivate and store industrial hemp at 7250 Rainbow Heights Rd.; Fall brook, CA
`
`92028.
`
`71.
`
`By unlawfully seizing Plaintiffs industrial hemp plants, Defendants violated
`
`Plaintiffs rights under Art. I, § 13 to be secure in its person and property against unreasonable
`
`searches and seizures.
`
`72.
`
`The County of San Diego is liable for the wrongful acts of the individual Defendants
`
`and/or law enforcement officers acting.at their direction under§ 815.2(a)· of the California
`
`Government Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its
`
`employees within the scope of the employment if the employee's act would subject him or her to
`
`liability.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of Cal. Const. Art. I § 19
`· Taking of Private Property without Just Compensation
`(All Defendants)
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference herein.
`
`- I I -
`Compliant for Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Violation of California Constitution; Conversion; Damages
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.18 Page 13 of 35
`
`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
`
`74.
`
`Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution provides, "Private property may
`
`be taken or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury
`
`unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner."
`
`75.
`
`Plaintiff had lawful property interest in its industrial hemp plants which the
`
`Defendants intentionally seized.
`
`76.
`
`Defendants willfully and maliciously violated Plaintiffs property rights by (1)
`
`seizing Plaintiffs industrial hemp plants constituting a taking of private property while executing
`
`the Warrant; (2) never providing just compensation to Plaintiff for the taking of Plaintiffs
`
`industrial hemp; and (3) did not take Plaintiffs property for any public use.
`
`77.
`
`. The County of San Diego and or the Drug Enforcement Administration are liable for
`
`the wrongful acts of the individual Defendants and/or law enforcement officers acting at their
`
`direction under§ 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides that a public entjty
`
`is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the employment if the
`
`employee's act would subject him or her to liability.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`California Torts Claims Act-Conversion
`(All Defendants)
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference herein.
`
`Under the California Torts Claim Act, "a public employee is liable for injury caused
`
`by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person." Cal. Government Code§ 820.
`
`80.
`
`Under the California Torts Claim Act, a public entity is vicariously liable for the
`
`torts committed by one of its employees within the scope of his or her employment. The Act
`
`further provides, "A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of
`
`an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would,
`
`apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal
`
`representative." See Cal. Gov. Code§ 815.2(a).
`
`81.
`
`Defendants wrongfully and intentionally exercised control and dominion over
`
`Plaintiffs personal property.
`
`- 12 -
`Compliant for Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Violation of California Constitution; Conversion; Damages
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.19 Page 14 of 35
`
`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
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiff owned, possessed, and had a right to possess the industrial hemp plants
`
`located at 7250 Rainbow Heights Rd., Fallbrook, CA 92028.
`
`83.
`
`Defendants willfully, maliciously, and substantially interfered with Plaintiff's
`
`property by taking possession of Plaintiff's personal property and destroying Plaintiff's hemp
`
`plants.
`
`84.
`
`Defendants' conduct did, permanently, interfere with Plaintiffs' dominion and
`
`control over Plaintiffs' property-i.e., Plaintiff's industrial hemp.
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`87.
`
`Plaintiff did not consent to Defendants' actions.
`
`Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm.
`
`-Plaintiff was harmed by Defendants' actions.
`
`DAMAGES
`
`88.
`
`Defendants' conduct has caused Plaintiff, Agro Dynamics LLC, substantial damages.
`
`While the specific amount will be proven at trial, Plaintiff's damages are currently believed to no
`
`less than $3,450,671.
`
`89.
`
`But for Defendants' misconduct, Plaintiff would have commercialized the
`
`approximately three thousand (3,000) industrial hemp plants at 7250 Rainbow Heights Rd.,
`
`Fallbrook, CA 92028 that Defendants seized and destroyed. As illustrated below, this would have
`
`led to multiple streams if revenue from the marketable products produced by the industrial hemp
`
`plants. All of that revenue was lost entirely as a result of Defendants' wrongful conduct.
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`waxes.
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`(e.g., CBN).
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`First, the plants would have yielded thousands of grams of CBD.
`
`Second, the plants would have yielded thousands of grams of hemp-derived fats and
`
`Third, the plants would have yielded thousands of hemp-derived terpenes.
`
`Fourth, the plants would have yielded thousands of grams of micro-cannabinoids
`
`Fifth, the plants would have yielded thousands of pounds of hemp fibers .
`
`Sixth, the plants would have yielded hundreds of gallons of hemp oil.
`
`- 13 -
`Compliant for Violations of42 U.S.C. § 1983; Violation ofCalifomia Constitution; Conversion; Damages
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/20 PageID.20 Page 15 of 35
`
`96.
`
`In addition, and wholly apart from the lost revenue streams from Plaintiffs
`
`commercialization of its hemp, Defendants' misconduct also directly caused damages to
`
`Plaintiffs business contracts and business expectations.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`97. Wherefore Agro Dynamics, LLC requests relief as follows, and accordin