Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.59 Page 1 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
` 1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
` 2. Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1
` 3. Violation of United States
` Constitution
` 4. Violation of California
` Constitution
` 5. Conversion
` 6. Trespass to Chattels
` 7. Negligence
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`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
`
`- 1 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.60 Page 2 of 29
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On or about December 20, 2018, the Federal Farm bill authorized the legal
`cultivation of hemp. On August 22, 2019, Plaintiffs herein obtained a Registration
`Issuance from the County of San Diego for the legal cultivation of hemp on their
`premises. Relying on this permit, Plaintiffs expended considerable time and money and
`planted approximately 3000 hemp plants that, according to a laboratory test, had less
`than .3% THC. On September 10, 2019 a law enforcement officer, Defendant Paul
`Gelles, conducted aerial reconnaissance in support of marijuana eradication operations
`in the area. Based on the officer’s observations of what appeared to be growing
`marijuana and the failure of law enforcement to make any investigation of San Diego
`County records which would have revealed the hemp Registration Issuance, as well as
`other material misstatements and omissions, a search warrant was issued on September
`11, 2019. The next day, September 12, 2019, law enforcement officers executed the
`search warrant. Upon 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 premises. Law enforcement disregarded this information and
`continued to seize and destroy all plants that appeared to be marijuana.
`THE PARTIES
`1.
`Plaintiff Agro Dynamics, LLC is limited liability company organized
`under the laws of the State of Wyoming and registered with the California Secretary of
`State to conduct business in California.
`2.
`Defendant United States of America is a sovereign nation.
`3.
`Defendant Drug Enforcement Administration is a United States federal
`law enforcement agency under the United States Department of Justice, tasked with
`combating drug trafficking and distribution within the United States.
`4.
`Defendant San Diego County is, and at all times herein alleged was, a
`legal subdivision and public entity organized and existing under the laws of the State
`of California.
`
`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
`
`- 2 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.61 Page 3 of 29
`
`
`
`5.
`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. Defendant Special Agent Gellens is sued in his both his
`individual and official capacities.
`6.
`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. Defendant Special Agent Ball is sued in his both his individual
`and official capacities.
`7.
`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. Defendant Special Agent Garcia is sued in his both his
`individual and official capacities.
`8.
`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. Defendant Special Agent Dawe is sued in his both her
`individual and official capacities.
`9.
`Defendant Special Agent Ross Van Nostrand is now, and at all times
`herein alleged was, a Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement 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. Defendant Special Agent Van
`Nostrand is sued in his both his individual and official capacities.
`10.
`Defendant Special Agent Jeremy Feuz is now, and at all times herein
`alleged was, a Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On information
`and belief, Special Agent Feuz is a citizen of the State of California and a resident of
`
`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
`
`- 3 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.62 Page 4 of 29
`
`
`
`the County of San Diego. Defendant Special Agent Fuez is sued in his both his
`individual and official capacities.
`11.
`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. Defendant Haskell is sued in his both his individual and official
`capacities.
`12.
`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. Defendant Aguilar is sued in his both his individual and official
`capacities.
`13.
`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. Defendant Stein is sued in his both his individual and official capacities.
`14.
`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. Defendant Smith is sued in his both his individual and official capacities.
`15.
`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. Defendant Astorga is sued in his both his individual and official
`capacities.
`16.
`Defendant Christopher Morris is now, and at all times herein alleged was,
`a Task Force Officer of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On information and
`
`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
`
`- 4 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.63 Page 5 of 29
`
`
`
`belief, Mr. Morris is a citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of
`San Diego. Defendant Morris is sued in his both his individual and official capacities.
`17.
`Defendant Steve Bodine is now, and at all times herein alleged was, a
`Sergeant of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department. On information and belief, Mr.
`Bodine is a citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`Defendant Bodine is sued in his both his individual and official capacities.
`18.
`Defendant Justin Moore is now, and at all times herein alleged was, a
`Detective of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department. On information and belief, Mr.
`Moore is a citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`Defendant Moore is sued in his both his individual and official capacities.
`19.
`Defendant Dwayne Prickett is now, and at all times herein alleged was, a
`Detective of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department. On information and belief, Mr.
`Prickett is a citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`Defendant Prickett is sued in his both his individual and official capacities.
`20.
`Defendant Christopher Perez is now, and at all times herein alleged was,
`a Detective of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department. On information and belief, Mr.
`Perez is a citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego.
`Defendant Perez is sued in his both his individual and official capacities.
`21.
`Defendant Ricardo Andrade is now, and at all times herein alleged was, a
`Detective of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department. On information and belief, Mr.
`Andrade is a citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San
`Diego. Defendant Andrade is sued in his both his individual and official capacities.
`22.
`DOES 1 through 50 are unknown to Plaintiff and include, without
`limitation, additional officers, supervisors, agencies, divisions or entities who were
`involved in, participated in, approved, ratified or knowingly failed to stop the wrongful
`conduct alleged herein. Plaintiff will amend the Complaint to identify them when their
`identities are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of DOES 1
`through 50 was the principal, parent, subsidiary, affiliate, agent, servant, employee,
`
`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
`
`- 5 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.64 Page 6 of 29
`
`
`
`employer, director, officer, co-conspirator, shareholder, director, partner, joint-
`venturer, and/or co-venturer of his/her/its co-defendants and, in doing the things herein
`alleged, was acting within the course and scope of his/her/its employment and/or within
`his/her/its authority, and/or in concert with and/or with the permission, ratification, or
`consent of his/her/its co-defendants, or otherwise as a tortfeasor. Plaintiff is informed
`and believes that each of DOES 1 through 50 is responsible in some manner for the
`occurrences and omissions herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs damages as herein alleged
`were proximately caused by their conduct.
`23.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that each of the
`defendants designated herein as DOE took part in and participated with Defendants in
`all matters referred to herein and was in some manner responsible for the injuries and
`losses suffered by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that
`at all times herein mentioned each of the Defendants was the agent, servant and/or
`employee or occupied other relationships with each of the other named Defendants and
`at all times herein mentioned acted within the course and scope of said agency and/or
`employment and/or other relationship and each other Defendant has ratified, consented
`to, and approved the acts of his agents, employees, and representatives, and that each
`actively participated in, aided and abetted, or assisted one another in the commission
`of the wrongdoing alleged in this Complaint.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`24.
`This Court has removal jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`§§ 1441(c)(1) and 1442(a). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims
`asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), since this action is between citizens of
`different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00,
`exclusive of interest and costs. This Court further has subject matter jurisdiction over
`the claims herein asserted under the Constitution and laws of the United States pursuant
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining causes of action
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`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
`
`- 6 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.65 Page 7 of 29
`
`
`
`25.
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Defendants reside
`in this District for the purposes of the foregoing venue statute and have sufficient
`contacts with this District to support personal jurisdiction in this District, a substantial
`part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims set forth in this Complaint
`occurred in this District, and Defendants’ conduct caused harm that Defendants knew
`would be suffered in this District
`26.
`Plaintiff has complied in all respects with the California Torts Claims Act,
`Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq., prior to filing this Complaint. Plaintiff timely presented
`a claim to “the County of San Diego and several unnamed San Diego County Sheriff
`officers and other as yet unnamed County agencies and/or personnel” under Cal. Gov.
`Code §§ 911.2 and 915 that complied in all respects with Cal. Gov. Code § 910.
`Plaintiff’s claim, among other things, described the facts surrounding the injury to
`person or property set forth herein, and placed the appropriate agencies on notice that
`Plaintiff was presenting a claim for possible settlement. Plaintiff’s claim was fully and
`finally denied by Defendant County of San Diego by way of a letter dated April 2,
`2020. This action was timely filed, pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 945.6, after Plaintiff
`had exhausted its administrative remedies.
`27.
`Plaintiffs complied in all respects with the United States Torts Claims Act,
`28 U.S.C. § 2675, prior to filing this Complaint. Plaintiff timely presented a claim
`that complied in all respects with the United States Torts Claims Act to “the Federal
`Drug Enforcement Agency and other Federal Law Enforcement Agencies yet unnamed
`and/or personnel to be determined”. Plaintiff’s claim, among other things, described
`the facts surrounding the injury to person or property set forth herein, supplied a sum
`certain for claimed damages, and placed the appropriate agencies on notice that
`Plaintiff was presenting a claim for possible settlement. Plaintiff’s claim was fully and
`finally denied by Defendant DEA by way of a letter dated May 15, 2020. This action
`was timely filed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2401, after Plaintiff had exhausted its
`administrative remedies.
`
`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
`
`- 7 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.66 Page 8 of 29
`
`
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`Industrial Hemp is Legal under California and Federal Law
`28.
`On January 1, 2017, the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act became
`effective, which permits the cultivation of hemp. (See Cal. Food & Agr. Code §81006)
`29.
`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)
`30.
`“Industrial hemp” or “hemp” is defined under California law as “an
`agricultural product, whether growing or not, that is limited to types of the plant
`Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including seeds of the plant and all
`derivatives, extracts, the resin extracted from any part of the plant, cannabinoids,
`isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, 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) and Cal Health Safety Code § 11018.5(a)).
`31.
`“Hemp”, as defined in the Farm Bill under United States law, “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 delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3
`percent on a dry weight basis”. (See 7 U.S.C. §1639o).
`32.
`Cannabis is defined under California law 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)).
`33.
`Additionally, the United States Controlled Substances Act defines
`marijuana as “all parts of the Cannabis Sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds
`thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound,
`
`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
`
`- 8 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.67 Page 9 of 29
`
`
`
`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. §1639o. (See 21 U.S.C. § 802(16)).
`34.
`Under both California law and federal law, industrial hemp and
`“marijuana / marihuana” are two separate, legally distinct plants. However, since hemp
`and marijuana are both Cannabis sativa L., they share the same appearance, shape,
`color and odor, and have the same leaf structure. They are both grown outdoors and in
`greenhouses.
`Plaintiff Legally Grows Industrial Hemp
`35.
`On August 1, 2019, Plaintiff signed a lease agreement for 7250 Rainbow
`Heights Rd., Fallbrook, CA 92028 (the “Licensed Property”). Tenants occupied the
`land and cultivated hemp for Plaintiff according to the legal permit to do so.
`36.
`On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff received a Registration Issuance from
`Defendant, County of San Diego, for outdoor hemp cultivation and storage at the
`Licensed Property. Plaintiff’s registration number is 37-190057G.
`37.
`From approximately August of 2019 through September 12th, 2019,
`Plaintiff cultivated hemp plants at the Licensed Property. 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
`at the Licensed Property were legally “Industrial Hemp” and not “Marijuana”.
`38.
`At all relevant times, the industrial hemp cultivated at the Licensed
`Property was the sole property of Plaintiff, and no other third party had any claim of
`right to the industrial hemp. At all relevant times, only Plaintiff had the right to
`possession of the industrial hemp.
`39.
`On September 12, 2019, Plaintiff had approximately three thousand
`(3,000) industrial hemp plants cultivating at the Licensed Property. These hemp plants
`were not mature, were not flowering and were not ready to harvest.
`
`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
`
`- 9 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.68 Page 10 of 29
`
`
`
`40.
`Prior to September 12, 2019, Defendants had not communicated any
`concerns to Plaintiff regarding its hemp cultivation at the Licensed Property.
`Defendants’ Unconstitutional Warrant
`41.
`On September 12, 2019, Defendants, and/or other law enforcement
`officers acting under color of law, executed Search Warrant Number 61976 (herein
`“Warrant”) for the Licensed Property.
`42.
`The Affidavit for the Warrant was filed in the Superior Court for the
`County of San Diego on September 11, 2019 (the “Affidavit”). The Affidavit
`concludes that “grounds for the issuance of a search warrant exist as set forth in
`[California] Penal Code 1524” and is signed by Special Agent Paul Gelles. The
`Affidavit states, among other things, that Defendant Gelles was “investigating possible
`violations of California Health and Safety 11358 – Cultivation of Marijuana.”
`43.
`The Affidavit further states, among other things, that Defendant Gelles
`“conducted an aerial reconnaissance flight in support of marijuana eradication
`operations in the area of Fallbrook” and “during the reconnaissance mission” observed
`a “marijuana cultivation operation” on the Property. The Affidavit further stated,
`without limitation:
`Your affiant could observe numerous large plants, set uniformly in rows,
`and contained within black plastic pots. With the aid of telephoto
`camera, you affiant recognized these plants as being
`marijuana…Marijuana has a distinct leaf structure that your affiant has
`seen on hundreds of occasions in the past, both up close and from afar.
`During the course of my employment as a DEA Special Agent, I have
`been involved in more than 100 marijuana investigations, and am
`familiar with the shape, color, and odor of marijuana plants.
`
`44.
`Based upon the investigation conducted by Defendant Gelles prior to
`submitting the Affidavit, Defendant Gelles had no reason to believe the plants he
`observed were marijuana as opposed to industrial hemp.
`45.
`The Affidavit contains material misrepresentations and omissions
`including, without limitation: (i) the Affidavit makes no mention of hemp or the
`
`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
`
`- 10 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.69 Page 11 of 29
`
`
`
`possibility that the plants observed by Defendant Gelles could be hemp; (ii) the
`Affidavit fails to disclose that the cultivation of hemp is legal if done under a
`registration from the County of San Diego; (iii) the Affidavit fails to disclose that the
`only legal way to distinguish between hemp and marijuana is through testing the plants;
`(iv) the Affidavit fails to disclose that Plaintiff had obtained a Registration for
`Industrial Hemp Cultivation from the County of San Diego; (v) the Affidavit fails to
`disclose that marijuana and hemp share the same appearance, shape, color and odor,
`and have the same leaf structure; (vi) the Affidavit does not state any efforts taken by
`Defendant Gelles or any other person to determine if there was a valid registration for
`hemp cultivation on the Property; and (vii) the Affidavit states: “If the cultivators did
`not intentionally notify licensing you affiant believes that furthers their intent of illegal
`distribution.”
`46.
`Upon information and belief, the above material misrepresentations and
`omissions in the Affidavit were made intentionally and with reckless disregard for the
`truth. Due to, without limitation, his extensive training and experience with controlled
`substances, Defendant Gelles was aware of, without limitation, the distinction between
`marijuana and hemp, the fact that marijuana and hemp share the same appearance,
`shape, color and odor, and have the same leaf structure, the fact that the only way to
`determine whether a plant is marijuana or hemp is to conduct a test, and the fact that
`hemp cultivation was legal under a valid registration from the County of San Diego. If
`Defendant Gelles was not aware of the foregoing, he acted with reckless disregard in
`not informing himself of these matters. Defendant Gelles was either aware of
`Plaintiff’s Registration for Industrial Hemp Cultivation or acted with reckless disregard
`in failing to investigate whether Plaintiff held a valid registration prior to submitting
`the Affidavit.
`47.
`The San Diego Superior Court issued the Warrant on September 11, 2019
`in reliance upon the Affidavit and the material omissions and misrepresentations
`
`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
`
`- 11 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.70 Page 12 of 29
`
`
`
`therein. The Warrant was issued under California law, pursuant to Cal. Pen. Code §
`1524.
`48.
`The material omissions and misrepresentations in the Affidavit were
`likely to mislead and influence the decision of the San Diego Superior Court regarding
`whether to issue a search warrant. Upon information and belief, the material omissions
`and misrepresentations in the Affidavit misled the San Diego Superior Court into
`perceiving probable cause to issue a search warrant, when, in fact, no probable cause
`existed. Upon information and belief, the San Diego Superior Court would not have
`issued the Warrant but for the material omissions and misrepresentations in the
`Affidavit.
`49.
`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.
`50.
`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
`51.
`The Warrant is facially invalid and does not comply with the requirements
`of California law.
`52.
`The Warrant authorized, in relevant part, the seizure of the following on
`the Licensed Property:
`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.
`
`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
`
`- 12 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.71 Page 13 of 29
`
`
`
`53. The Warrant did not authorize the seizure of industrial hemp.
`54. 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.
`Defendants’ Unconstitutional Destruction of Plaintiff’s Hemp
`55. On September 12, 2019, Defendants and/or other persons or agencies
`acting at their direction, acting under the invalid Warrant and false color of law, seized
`Plaintiff’s legal industrial hemp that was being cultivated at the Licensed Property.
`56. Defendants were required under the law to confine their seizure on the
`Licensed Property to the property set forth in the Warrant.
`57. 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 hemp plants 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 Plaintiff’s property.
`58. Defendants did not contact Plaintiff prior to seizing Plaintiff’s industrial
`hemp. This is despite the tenant’s statements to Defendants that the hemp belonged to
`Plaintiff and was being legally grown by Plaintiff.
`59. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to test any of Plaintiff’s
`industrial hemp growing on the Licensed Property to determine whether it was hemp
`or marijuana prior to unlawfully seizing the hemp.
`60. Defendants never demonstrated that it was not reasonably possible to
`preserve Plaintiff’s industrial hemp plants in place. It would have been possible to do
`so. By immediately seizing the hemp without conducting any testing or contacting
`Plaintiff, Defendants wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of its right to obtain a temporary
`
`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
`
`- 13 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.72 Page 14 of 29
`
`
`
`restraining order or other emergency relief to enjoin the seizure and destruction of its
`legal crop.
`61. Under the terms of the Warrant, the 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.
`62. Upon information and belief, after unlawfully seizing Plaintiff’s industrial
`hemp, Defendants left the hemp unprotected in the back of pickup trucks while they
`dined at a restaurant.
`63. Upon information and belief, the Defendants have destroyed 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.
`64. Plaintiff’s industrial hemp unlawfully seized and destroyed by Defendants
`has a value of not less than $3,450,671, or an amount to be proven at trial.
`The Harm Caused to Plaintiff
`65. Defendants’ conduct has caused Plaintiff substantial damages. While the
`specific amount will be proven at trial, Plaintiff’s damages are currently believed to be
`no less than $3,450,671.
`66. 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 of 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.
`67. First, the plants would have yielded thousands of grams of CBD.
`68. Second, the plants would have yielded thousands of grams of hemp-
`derived fats and waxes.
`
`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
`
`- 14 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02082-JAH-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/13/20 PageID.73 Page 15 of 29
`
`
`
`69. Third, the plants would have yielded thousands of hemp-derived terpenes.
`70. Fourth, the plants would have yielded thousands of grams of micro-
`cannabinoids (e.g., CBN).
`71. Fifth, the plants would have yielded thousands of pounds of hemp fibers.
`72. Sixth, the plants would have yielded hundreds of gallons of hemp oil.
`73.
`In addition, and wholly apart from the lost revenue streams from
`Plaintiff’s commercialization of its hemp, Defendants’ misconduct also directly caused
`damages to Plaintiff’s business contracts and business expectations.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`42 U.S.C. § 1983
`
`74. Plaintiff fully incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference herein.
`75. Plaintiff brings this cause of action against all Defendants.
`76.
`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
`immunities secured by the constitution and law shall be liable to the party i