Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.185 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`S. Edward Wicker (SBN 93057)
`11440 W. Bernardo Court, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92127
`Telephone: (760) 735-6100
`edward@ewickerlaw.com
`
`Gregory M. Garrison, Esq. (SBN 165215)
`GREGORY M. GARRISON, APC
`6886 Mimosa Drive
`Carlsbad, California 92011
`Telephone: (619) 708-1628
`greg@garrisonapc.com
`
`Alexander E. Papaefthimiou, Esq. (SBN 236930)
`PAPAEFTHIMIOU APC
`1601 Carmen Drive, Suite 212D
`Camarillo, California 93010
`Telephone: (805) 366-3909
`alex@aplitigation.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`AGRO DYNAMICS, LLC a Wyoming Limited
`Liability Company,
` Plaintiff,
`vs.
`
`THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINSTRATION,
`SAN DIEGO COUNTY, and SPECIAL
`AGENTS PAUL GELLES, ERIC BALL,
`KIERAN GRACIA, MARSHA DAWE, ROSS
`VAN NOSTRAND, AND JEREMY FEUZ;
`FRANK HASKELL, ANDREW AGUILAR,
`JASON STEIN, TIMOTHY SMITH,
`MICHAEL ASTORGA, CHRISTOPHER
`MORRIS, SGT. STEVE BODINE, DET.
`JUSTIN MOORE, DET. DWAYNE
`PRICKETT, DET. CHRISTOPHER PEREZ,
`AND DET. RICARDO ANDRADE; and DOES
`1 to 50 inclusive,
` Defendants.
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
`DISMISS BY DEFENDANTS
`COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STEVE
`BODINE, JUSTIN MOORE, DWAYNE
`PRICKETT, CHRISTOPHER PEREZ,
`AND RICARDO ANDRADE
`
`
`Date: January 27, 2021
`Time: 10:30 a.m.
`Dept.: 13B
`Judge: Hon. John A. Houston
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTY) 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.186 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………….....1
`
`II. SUMMARY OF PERTINENT ALLEGATIONS AND INFERENCES..….…. 2
`
`
`Cultivation of Hemp is Legal under Federal and State Law…...………2
`A.
`B. Defendant Issues Plaintiff a Registration to Grow Hemp……………...2
`C. Defendants’ Unconstitutional “Marijuana” Seizure Warrant…..………3
`D. Defendants Unconstitutionally Raid and Intentionally Destroy
`Plaintiff’s Legal and Registered Hemp Crop…………………..………4
`Plaintiff Suffers Over $3.4 Million in Losses…...……………….…….5
`
`E.
`
`
`III. GOVERNING STANDARDS……………………..…………………………...6
`
`IV. PLAINTIFF STATES A CLAIM UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
` (FIRST COA)…………………………………………………………………..7
`
`V. PLAINTIFFS STATES A CLAIM UNDER CAL. CIV. CODE § 52.1
` (SECOND COA) …..…………………………………………………………..11
`
`VI. PLAINTIFF STATES A CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
` CONSTITUTION (FOURTH COA) …………..…………………...………...15
`
`VII. PLAINTIFFS STATES CLAIMS FOR CONVERSION, TRESPASS AND
` NEGLIGENCE (FIFTH, SIXTH AND SEVENTH COA)…...……………..17
`
`VIII. DEFENDANTS ARE NOT “IMMUNE” FROM THEIR WILLFUL
` VIOLATIONS OF LAW (ALL CAUSES OF ACTION)…………………..17
`
`
`“Qualified Immunity” Does Not Apply (First and Third COA)……...17
`A.
`B. Defendants are Not Immune Under Cal. Gov. Code § 821.6
`(Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh COA) ……..……………...19
`
`
`IX. PLAINTIFFS REQUEST LEAVE TO AMEND…………………….……….23
`
`X. CONCLUSION………….…………………………………………………….23
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTY) 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.187 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`United States Constitution
`
`Fourth Amendment ……………………………………………… 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17
`Fifth Amendment ……….………………………………………………….…7, 8, 17
`Fourteenth Amendment….……………………………...…………………… 7, 8, 17
`
`California Constitution
`Article I, Section 13 ……………………………………………………………….16
`Article I, Section 19 ……………………………………………………………….15
`
`Statutes
`
` 7
`
` U.S.C. 1639o-1639s ……………………………………………………….… 2, 16
`42 U.S.C. § 1983 ……………………………………………………………….…7-9
`Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 ……………………………………….………………… 11, 17
`Cal. Food & Agr. Code § 81006 ……………………………….……………… 2, 16
`Cal. Gov. Code § 821.6 ………………………………………..……..…… 17, 19-21
`Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11469…………………………………………..…… 14
`Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11479…………………………………………..…… 10
`Fed. Rul. Civ. Proc. 12 ......................................................................................... 6, 18
`Fed. Rul. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(1) .................................................................................... 23
`
`Cases
`Allen v. Kumagi,
`356 F. App’x 8 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 14
`Armstrong v. Sexson,
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60023 (E.D. Cal. 2007) ............................................ 15-16
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTY) 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.188 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`Ass’n for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Cnty. of Los Angeles,
`648 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................. 7
`Bagdasaryan v. City of Los Angeles,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224542 (C.D. Cal. 2018) .......................................... 21-22
`Baughman v. State of California,
`38 Cal. App. 4th 182 (1995) ................................................................................ 21
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
`550 U.S. 544 (2006) ............................................................................................... 7
`Bd. Of the Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown
`520 U.S. 397 (1997) ............................................................................................... 9
`Bettin v. Maricopa Cty.,
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42979 (D. Ariz. 2007) .............................................. 13-14
`Blankenhorn v. City of Orange,
`485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................... 22
`Camarillo v. City of Maywood,
`2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85386 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ............................................ 16-17
`City of Canton v. Harris,
`489 U.S. 378 (1989) ............................................................................................... 9
`Clement v. City of Glendale,
`518 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................. 15
`Cornell v. City & Cty. of San Francisco,
`17 Cal. App. 5th 766 (2017) ................................................................................ 11
`Cree, Inc. v. Tarr Inc.,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119008 (S.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................. 6
`Cty. Inmate Tel. Serv. Cases,
`48 Cal. App. 5th 354 (2020) ................................................................................ 11
`Cty. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court,
`181 Cal. App. 4th 218 (2009) .............................................................................. 21
`Customer Co. v. City of Sacramento,
`10 Cal. 4th 368 (1995) ......................................................................................... 16
`DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys.,
`Inc., 957 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1992) ....................................................................... 23
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTY) 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.189 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`Davis v. Fregoso,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137615 (S.D. Cal. 2012) .......................................... 18-19
`Dougherty v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`177 F. Supp. 3d 1230 (E.D. Cal. 2016) .................................................................. 6
`Emeziem v. Cal. DOJ,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124481 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ............................................... 22
`Estate of Silva v. City of San Diego,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221679 (S.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................. 9
`Flores v. City of Pasadena,
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177468 (C.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................... 21-22
`Garmon v. County of Los Angeles,
`828 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 20-22
`Gillan v. City of San Marino,
`147 Cal. App. 4th 103 (2007) .............................................................................. 21
`Gillette v. Delmore,
`979 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................... 9
`Gilligan v. Jamco Develop. Corp.,
`108 F.3d 246 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................. 6
`Govind v. Felker,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68259 (C.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................... 6
`Graham v. Connor,
`490 U.S. 386 (1989) ............................................................................................... 7
`Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton,
`728 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................. 10
`Green v. Cty. of Yuba,
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27949 (E.D. Cal. 2019) .................................................. 22
`Groten v. California,
`251 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................... 18
`Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
`457 U.S. 800 (1982) ............................................................................................. 18
`Holtz v. Superior Court,
`3 Cal. 3d 296 (1970) ............................................................................................ 16
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTY) 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.190 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`Hope v. Pelzer,
`536 U.S. 730 (2002) ............................................................................................. 18
`Houghton v. South,
`965 F.2d 1532 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................. 18
`In re Immune Response Sec. Litig.,
`375 F. Supp. 2d 983 (S.D. Cal. 2005) .................................................................... 6
`In re Peregrine Sys.,
`2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50367 (S.D. Cal. 2005) ................................................ 6-7
`Ketchum v. Alameda Cty.,
`811 F.2d 1243 (9th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................... 7
`Kisela v. Hughes,
`138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) ......................................................................................... 18
`Lavan v. City of Los Angeles,
`693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................. 14
`Marron v. United States,
`275 U.S. 192 (1927) ............................................................................................. 13
`Mattos v. Agarano,
`661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................... 18
`McNamara-Blad v. Assoc. of Prof. Flight Attendants,
`275 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................... 7
`Mendez v. City of Los Angeles,
`897 F.3d1067 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................ 20-22
`Millender v. County of Los Angeles,
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98213 (C.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................. 17
`Monell v. Department of Social Services,
`436 U.S. 658 (1978) ............................................................................................... 8
`O’Neal v. Johnson,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13493 (E.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................. 14
`Pareto v. F.D.I.C.,
`139 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................. 7
`Quintero v. City of Escondido,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147579 (S.D. Cal. 2017) ................................................ 22
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTY) 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.191 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`Reese v. Cty. Of Sacramento,
`888 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................. 11
`San Joaquin Deputy Sheriffs’ Ass’n v. County of San Joaquin,
`898 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (E.D. Cal. 2012) ................................................................ 13
`San Jose Charter of the Hell’s Angels v. City of San Jose,
`1999 WL 1211672 (N.D. Cal. 1999) ................................................................... 21
`Sandoval v. Cty. Of Sonoma,
`912 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................... 11
`Shaw v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.,
`49 F. Supp. 3d 702 (S.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................... 23
`Sharp v. City of Orange,
`871 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 20-22
`Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles,
`203 Cal. App. 4th 947 (2012) .............................................................................. 11
`Smith v. County of Riverside,
`2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98213 (C.D. Cal. 2006) .................................................. 17
`Stillwell v. Radioshack Corp.,
`2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130367 (S.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................. 6
`Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles,
`12 Cal. 3d 710 (1974) .......................................................................................... 20
`Thompson v. Superior Court
`70 Cal. App. 3d 101 (1977) .................................................................................. 13
`United States v. Becker,
`929 F.2d 442 (9th Cir. 1991) ............................................................................... 13
`United States v. Jacobsen,
`466 U.S. 109 (1984) ....................................................................................... 13-14
`United States v. Ramirez,
`523 U.S. 65 (1998) ............................................................................................... 13
`United States v. Redwood City,
`640 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981) ................................................................................. 6
`Valenzuela v. San Diego Police Department,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27260 (S.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................. 22
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTY) 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.192 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`Varlitskiy v. County of Riverside,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130223 (C.D. Cal. 2020) .......................................... 21-22
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................. 23
`West v. Atkins,
`487 U.S. 42 (1988) ................................................................................................. 7
`Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n,
`496 U.S. 498 (1990) ............................................................................................... 7
`Wright v. Beck,
`2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 37463, 981 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 2020) ................. 15, 17-19
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTY) 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.193 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`Plaintiff AGRO DYNAMICS, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Agro”) respectfully
`
`submits the following Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss [Docket 9] by defendant
`COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO (the “County”) and defendants STEVE BODINE,
`JUSTIN MOORE, DWAYNE PRICKETT, CHRISTOPHER PEREZ, and RICARDO
`ANDRADE (collectively the “Individual Defendants”).
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in
`human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” James Madison. “Government is instituted
`to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of
`individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of
`government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man
`whatever is his own.” James Madison, Essay on Property, 1792.
`Plaintiff, a legal hemp cultivator licensed and registered by the County, is a
`victim of the knowing and willful abuse of Government power. The County, despite
`having issued a registration to Plaintiff to grow industrial hemp, raided Plaintiff’s
`licensed property and destroyed approximately 3,000 of Plaintiff’s legal hemp plants
`worth over $3.45 million. Prior to the destruction of Plaintiff’s crop, the tenant on the
`licensed property pleaded with the Individual Defendants to spare Plaintiff’s hemp,
`told Defendants that the hemp belonged to Plaintiff, and offered to show them the
`County registration. Defendants, with full knowledge of the illegality of their conduct,
`proceeded to destroy Plaintiff’s property without any notice to Plaintiff.
`Defendants rely upon a search warrant obtained for the seizure of “marijuana”,
`which they knew the DEA obtained by failing to inform the Court that Plaintiff had a
`license to grow hemp. While the plants may look similar, hemp is not “marijuana”.
`Defendants are well-aware of this fact. Regardless, Defendants decided to serve as
`Judge, Jury and Executioner by exceeding the scope of the warrant and failing to
`notify Plaintiff or test Plaintiff’s crop prior to destroying it.
`Plaintiff complied with the law. Defendants must do the same.
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTY) 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`1
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.194 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`SUMMARY OF PERTINENT ALLEGATIONS AND INFERENCES
`A. Cultivation of Hemp is Legal under Federal and State Law
`The cultivation of industrial hemp is legal under both State and Federal Law.
`[Docket 8 (FAC)] at ¶¶ 28-33. The California Industrial Hemp Farming Act, which
`permits the cultivation of hemp under State law, became effective on January 1, 2017.
`Id., ¶ 28; See, e.g, Cal. Food & Agr. Code §81006. The United States Agriculture
`Improvement Farming Act, which legalized the cultivation of industrial hemp under
`Federal Law, was signed into law on December 20, 2018. FAC at ¶ 28; See 7 U.S.C.
`1639o-1639s.
`Under both State and Federal law, industrial hemp and “marijuana / marihuana”
`are two separate, legally distinct plants. FAC at ¶34. However, because hemp and
`marijuana are both Cannabis sativa L., they share the same appearance, shape, color
`and odor, and have the same leaf structure. Id. They are both grown outdoors and in
`greenhouses. Id. The primary distinction between hemp and “marijuana / marihuana”
`recognized under State and Federal law is the delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”)
`concentration of the plants, with hemp containing a concentration of THC that is not
`more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis. Id., ¶¶30-33.
`B. Defendant Issues Plaintiff a Registration to Grow Hemp
`On August 22, 2019, defendant County of San Diego issued Registration No.
`37-190057G to Plaintiff for industrial hemp cultivation as a grower (the
`“Registration”). [Docket 8 (FAC)] at ¶¶ 35-36; See FAC at Exhibit 3 (Registration).
`The Registration was valid from August 22, 2019 through August 21, 2020 and
`permitted Plaintiff to grow and store industrial hemp on the 1.71 acre property at 7250
`Rainbow Heights Road, Fallbrook, 92808 (the “Licensed Property”). Id. Per the
`Registration, Plaintiff had until “no more than 30 days prior to harvest” to test its
`plants for THC content. See FAC at Exhibit 3 (Registration).
`Relying upon its Registration, Plaintiff invested substantial time and money
`into growing industrial hemp on the Licensed Property. The industrial hemp was the
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTY) 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`2
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.195 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`sole property of Plaintiff, and no other third party had any claim of right or possession
`to the registered and legal hemp. See FAC, ¶¶ 37-38.
`By September 12, 2019, Plaintiff was cultivating approximately three thousand
`(3,000) industrial hemp plants at the Licensed Property. These hemp plants were not
`mature, were not flowering and were not ready to harvest. [FAC, ¶39]. Prior to this
`time, Defendants had not communicated any concerns to Plaintiff regarding its open
`cultivation of hemp at the Licensed Property. Id. ¶40.
`C. Defendants’ Unconstitutional “Marijuana” Seizure Warrant
`On September 11, 2019, defendant Special Agent Gelles of the Drug
`Enforcement filed an Affidavit for Warrant (the “Affidavit”) in the Superior Court
`for the County of San Diego (the “State Court”) and requested a search warrant for
`the Licensed Property under California law. [FAC, ¶¶41-42]. The purpose of the
`requested warrant was to investigate the possible “cultivation of marijuana”. Id. Agent
`Gelles supported the Affidavit by stating he had conducted an aerial reconnaissance
`and observed plants that appeared to be “marijuana”. Id. ¶43.
`Defendants had no reason to believe the plants observed were “marijuana” as
`opposed to hemp. [FAC, ¶44]. The Affidavit did not inform the State Court, among
`other things, that the plants observed could be hemp, that hemp cultivation was
`permitted by the County on the Licensed Property, or that testing is required to
`distinguish between “marijuana” and hemp. Id. ¶45. The Affidavit also failed to
`mention that the seizure of the plants would lead to their destruction. The Affidavit
`misleadingly states: “If the cultivators did not intentionally notify licensing you affiant
`believes that furthers their intent of illegal distribution.” Id. Upon information and
`belief, the above material misrepresentations and omissions in the Affidavit were
`made intentionally and with reckless disregard for the truth. Id. ¶46.
`The State Court issued Search Warrant 61976 (the “Warrant”) on September
`11, 2019 in reliance upon the Affidavit and the material omissions and
`misrepresentations therein. See [FAC, ¶¶41, 47]. The Warrant authorized, among
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTY) 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`3
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.196 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`other things, the seizure of the following on the Licensed Property: (1) bulk
`“marijuana”; (2) processed “marijuana”; (3) “marijuana” trimmings; (4) “marijuana”
`cigarettes; and (5) “marijuana” plants, seeds and derivatives of “marijuana”. Id., ¶52.
`The Warrant did not authorize the seizure of industrial hemp. Id., ¶53.
`The Warrant is facially invalid and does not comply with the requirements of
`California law. [FAC, ¶51]. The Warrant was not supported by probable cause for
`reasons including, without limitation, that Defendants knew or should have known
`that Plaintiff had a valid Registration for Industrial Hemp Cultivation from the County
`of San Diego and had no reason to believe that the plants observed by Defendants
`prior to their execution of the Warrant were anything other than legal industrial hemp.
`Id., ¶49. The Warrant did not state any efforts taken by the affiant or any law
`enforcement personnel to determine if there was a valid registration for a hemp
`cultivation on the premises. Id., ¶54.
`Defendants obtained the invalid Warrant with actual knowledge and the specific
`intent to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights or acted with reckless disregard for
`Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. [FAC, ¶50].
`
`D. Defendants Unconstitutionally Raid and Intentionally Destroy
`Plaintiff’s Legal and Registered Hemp Crop
`On September 12, 2019, Defendants raided the Licensed Property and seized
`Plaintiff’s registered hemp. [FAC, ¶55]. In doing so, they acted outside any authority
`granted them under the Warrant for the seizure of “marijuana”. Id., ¶¶56, 61.
`Before Defendants seized and destroyed Plaintiff’s hemp, they were advised by
`the tenant that the hemp plants were a legal cultivation duly registered by the County
`of San Diego. [FAC, ¶57]. The tenant further informed Defendants that the hemp
`belonged to Plaintiff and not the tenant. See Id., ¶58. The tenant offered to show
`Defendants the Registration issued by Defendant County of San Diego. Id., ¶57.
`Defendants explicitly rejected these warnings and willfully proceeded to seize and
`destroy Plaintiff’s lawful property. Id.
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTY) 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`4
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.197 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`Defendants did not contact Plaintiff prior to seizing Plaintiff’s lawful hemp.
`[FAC, ¶58]. This is despite the tenant’s statements to Defendants that the hemp
`belonged to Plaintiff and was being legally grown by Plaintiff. Id.
`Prior to seizing Plaintiff’s lawful hemp, and despite actual notice of the
`Registration, Defendants failed to test the plants to determine whether they were
`“marijuana” prior to unlawfully seizing them. [FAC, ¶58]. It would have been
`possible for Defendants to preserve Plaintiff’s immature industrial hemp plants in
`place, in order to test them without destroying them. Id., ¶¶59-60, 39. Defendants
`instead choosing to seize – and thereby destroy – Plaintiff’s lawful property.
`By immediately seizing the hemp without conducting any testing or contacting
`Plaintiff, Defendants wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of its right to obtain a temporary
`restraining order or other emergency relief to enjoin the seizure and destruction of its
`legal crop. [FAC, ¶60]. The removal of Plaintiff’s immature plants, which were not
`ready for harvest, destroyed their economic value.
`Under the terms of the (invalid) Warrant, Defendants did not have the lawful
`authority to seize Plaintiff’s industrial hemp. They did so with actual knowledge and
`the specific intent to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights or acted with reckless
`disregard for Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. [FAC, ¶61].
`After unlawfully seizing Plaintiff’s registered hemp, Defendants left Plaintiff’s
`crop unprotected in the open beds of pickup trucks as they dined in a restaurant. [FAC,
`¶62]. Defendants thereafter finished the destruction of Plaintiff’s lawful crop, which
`was effectively destroyed when the immature plants were ripped from the ground. See
`Id., ¶¶63, 39. Defendants destroyed Plaintiff’s lawful property with actual knowledge
`and the specific intent to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights or acted with reckless
`disregard for Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Id., ¶63.
`E.
`Plaintiff Suffers Over $3.4 Million in Losses
`Plaintiff’s industrial hemp wrongfully destroyed by Defendants has a value of
`not less than $3,450,671.00. [FAC, ¶64].
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTY) 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`5
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.198 Page 14 of 33
`
`
`
`Plaintiff lost multiple streams of revenue, including, without limitation,
`thousands of grams of medicinal and non-intoxicating CBD and CBN (which are used
`to treat or alleviate numerous conditions, including cancer), thousands of hemp-
`derived terpenes, thousands of grams of hemp-derived fats and waxes, hundreds of
`gallons of hemp oil, and thousands of pounds of fiber. Id., ¶¶66-72.
`In addition, and wholly apart from the lost revenue streams from Plaintiff’s
`commercialization of its hemp, Defendants’ unlawful conduct directly caused
`damages to Plaintiff’s business contracts and business expectations. [FAC, ¶73].
`III. GOVERNING STANDARDS
`“The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and
`is rarely granted.” Gilligan v. Jamco Develop. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir.
`1997); See Govind v. Felker, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68259 at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2011);
`and Stillwell v. Radioshack Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130367 (S.D. Cal. 2008)
`(“Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper only in extraordinary cases.”)
`“The purpose of a complaint is to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what
`the…claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Cree, Inc. v. Tarr Inc., 2017 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 119008 at *14 (S.D. Cal. 2017), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,
`47 (1957); See Dougherty v. Bank of Am., N.A., 177 F. Supp. 3d 1230, 1253 (E.D. Cal.
`2016) (The complaint must only “fairly put [Defendants] on notice of the basis of
`Plaintiffs’ claims.”) “It is a functional standard that ensures that the opposing party
`can properly defend itself in court.” Id.
`
`In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint need only state a claim
`for relief that is “plausible on its face”, meaning that it must only “allow the court to
`draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). “Even if the face of the pleadings indicate
`that recovery is very remote and unlikely, Plaintiffs are still entitled to offer evidence
`to support their claims.” In re Immune Response Sec. Litig., 375 F. Supp. 2d 983, 1015
`(S.D. Cal. 2005); See U.S. v. Redwood City, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981) and In
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTY) 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC
`
`6
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 13 Filed 12/28/20 PageID.199 Page 15 of 33
`
`
`
`re Peregrine Sys., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50367 at *21 (S.D. Cal. 2005).
`On a motion to dismiss, all of a complaint’s allegations are assumed to be true,
`even if doubtful in fact. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544, 556 (a well-
`pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears “that a recovery is very remote and
`unlikely.”) The Court also construes the complaint’s allegations and all reasonable
`inferences drawn therefrom in favor of the non-moving party. See, Ass’n for Los
`Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 648 F.3d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 2011);
`McNamara-Blad v. Assoc. of Prof. Flight Attendants, 275 F.3d 1165, 1169 (9th Cir.
`2002) and Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998).
`IV. PLAINTIFF STATES A CLAIM UNDER 42 USC § 1983 (FIRST COA)
`Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights,
`privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
`Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990), quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
`Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method
`for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386,
`393-394 (1989). To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two
`essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
`States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting
`under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v.
`Alameda Cty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
`Plaintiff states a cause of action under Section 1983 based upon Defendants’
`violations of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U