Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 1 of 22
`
`Ross Day, OSB #002395
`Day Law, P.C.
`14945 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150
`Portland, Oregon 97224
`Mailing Address: P.O. Box 30148
`Portland, Oregon 97294
`ross@daylawpc.com
`T:(503) 747-2705
`F:(503) 914-1892
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF OREGON
`
`MEDFORD DIVISION
`
`
`OREGONIZED HEMP CO LLC, an Oregon
`domestic limited liability company, and
`JUSTIN PITTS, an individual,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OREGON, a political
`subdivision of the state of Oregon,
`JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON, a political
`subdivision of the state of Oregon, JOHN
`DOES 1 THROUGH 20, in their individual and
`official capacity;
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`(Violation of Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C.
`§1983; Violations of the Oregon
`Constitution; Trespass to Chattels;
`Conversion; Abuse of Process)
`
`AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY:
`$2,500,000.00
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Oregonized Hemp Co LLC and Justin Pitts allege as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Oregonized Hemp Co, LLC is an Oregon domestic limited liability company
`
`whose principal place of business is located in Josephine County, Oregon.
`
`1 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Ross Day, OSB #002395
`Day Law, P.C.
`14945 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150
`Portland, Oregon 97224
`Mailing Address: P.O. Box 30148
`Portland, Oregon 97294
`ross@daylawpc.com
`T:(503) 747-2705
`F:(503) 914-1892
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF OREGON
`
`MEDFORD DIVISION
`
`
`OREGONIZED HEMP CO LLC, an Oregon
`domestic limited liability company, and
`JUSTIN PITTS, an individual,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OREGON, a political
`subdivision of the state of Oregon,
`JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON, a political
`subdivision of the state of Oregon, JOHN
`DOES 1 THROUGH 20, in their individual and
`official capacity;
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`(Violation of Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C.
`§1983; Violations of the Oregon
`Constitution; Trespass to Chattels;
`Conversion; Abuse of Process)
`
`AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY:
`$2,500,000.00
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Oregonized Hemp Co LLC and Justin Pitts allege as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Oregonized Hemp Co, LLC is an Oregon domestic limited liability company
`
`whose principal place of business is located in Josephine County, Oregon.
`
`1 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs Justin is a resident of Josephine County, state of Oregon.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Josephine County (herein “Josephine County”) is a political subdivision of
`
`the state of Oregon.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`Defendant Jackson County (herein “Jackson County”) is a political subdivision of the
`
`state of Oregon.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`Defendants John Does 1 through 10, whose identities are unknown at this time, are
`
`individuals working for the Josephine County sheriff’s department, or in concert with and
`
`under the direction of Josephine County sheriff’s department. John Does 1 through 10 are
`
`named in their individual and official capacities.
`
`6.
`
`Defendants John Does 11 through 20, whose identities are unknown at this time, are
`
`individuals working for the Jackson County sheriff’s department, or in concert with and
`
`under the direction of Jackson County sheriff’s department. John Does 1 through 10 are
`
`named in their individual and official capacities.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`The identities of Defendant John Does 1 through 20 are not known at the time of the
`
`filing of this complaint. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this complaint when the
`
`identities of Defendant John Does 1 through 20 become known to the Plaintiffs.
`
`2 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`Unless otherwise specifically delineated, all defendants shall be referred to herein as
`
`8.
`
`“Defendants”.
`
`VENUE AND JURISDICTION
`
`9.
`
`
`
`This case presents claims against the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, in
`
`addition to state law claims. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. §1367 (supplemental claim
`
`jurisdiction).
`
`10.
`
`
`
`The acts giving rise to the claims presented in this complaint occurred in Josephine
`
`County, Oregon. Accordingly, venue is appropriate in this Court.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`11.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Oregonized Hemp Co, LLC (herein “OHC”) is a single member limited
`
`liability company organized under the laws of the state of Oregon. OHC is a member-
`
`managed limited liability company. Plaintiff Justin Pitts (herein “Pitts”) is the sole member
`
`of OHC.
`
`12.
`
`
`
`OHC grows, cultivates, harvests and processes industrial hemp. OHC contracts with
`
`various landowners in the southern Oregon area to grow industrial hemp in sufficient
`
`quantities to meet OHC’s production needs.
`
`3 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`Prior to October of 2019, OHC stored its ready-to-be-processed industrial hemp in a
`
`13.
`
`building owned by Pitts, located in downtown Grants Pass, Oregon. This building is also
`
`where OHC processes its industrial hemp into herbal teas, lotions, and other consumable
`
`items.
`
`14.
`
`
`
`In Oregon, in order to be able to handle, grow or process industrial hemp, a person
`
`and/or company must have valid registrations with the state of Oregon, by and through the
`
`state of Oregon’s Department of Agriculture. At all relevant times OHC and Pitts had all the
`
`necessary licenses and/or registrations from the Oregon Department of Agriculture.
`
`15.
`
`
`
`In approximately the middle of October 2019, the fire marshal for the city of Grants
`
`Pass, Oregon told Pitts that OHC/Pitts could not store “fibrous material” in his building in
`
`Grants Pass, and that OHC/Pitts would have to move OHC/Pitts’ industrial hemp to a
`
`different off-site location. OHC/Pitts was given thirty (30) days to move the industrial hemp.
`
`16.
`
`
`
`In approximately the beginning of November, 2019, OHC/Pitts moved the industrial
`
`hemp to a greenhouse located at 1100 Panther Gulch Road, Williams, county of Josephine,
`
`Oregon (herein “Panther Greenhouse”). The total amount of industrial hemp initially moved
`
`by OHC/Pitts to the Panther Greenhouse was approximately 6,724 pounds of plant material.
`
`At all relevant times, to the best of OHC/Pitts’ knowledge, the only industrial hemp stored in
`
`the Panther Greenhouse was industrial hemp that belonged to OHC/Pitts.
`
`4 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`OHC and/or Pitts do not have an ownership interest in the private real property
`
`17.
`
`located at 1100 Panther Gulch Road, Williams, county of Josephine, Oregon. OHC and/or
`
`Pitts relationship with the private real property located at 1100 Panther Gulch Road,
`
`Williams, county of Josephine, Oregon is that of a lessee of the Panther Greenhouse.
`
`18.
`
`
`
`Industrial hemp is a strain of the plant Cannabis sativa. Industrial hemp is a plant
`
`that is put to many uses. Both the state of Oregon and the federal government define
`
`industrial hemp as all seeds, parts and varieties of the Cannabis plant, whether growing or
`
`not, that contain an average tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed 0.3
`
`percent on a dry weight basis. See ORS 571.269(5)(a); 7 U.S.C §1639o(1).
`
`19.
`
`
`
`According to Oregon state law and federal law, seeds, parts and varieties of the
`
`Cannabis plant that exceed 0.3 percent on average of tetrahydrocannabinol concentration is
`
`considered “Marijuana”. See 21 U.S.C §802(16); ORS 475B.015(17). Marijuana, as
`
`opposed to industrial hemp, is illegal to produce, possess, sell etc. under federal law. It is
`
`legal to produce, possess, sell etc. marijuana under the laws of the state of Oregon, but such
`
`activity is highly regulated.
`
`20.
`
`
`
`Under both Oregon law and federal law, industrial hemp and “Marijuana” are two
`
`separate, legally distinct choses.
`
`
`
`5 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 6 of 22
`
`21.
`
`
`
`Businesses such as OHC that grow, cultivate, harvest, process and sell industrial
`
`hemp do so knowing that all of their plant material (i.e. industrial hemp) must maintain a
`
`tetrahydrocannabinol concentration below 0.3 percent, otherwise said businesses (like OHC)
`
`could be in violation of state and federal law. Accordingly, OHC regularly tests its industrial
`
`hemp to insure its plant material is below the level of tetrahydrocannabinol concentration
`
`required by state and federal law.
`
`22.
`
`
`
`At all relevant times, all of the plant material stored in the Panther Greenhouse by
`
`OHC had a tetrahydrocannabinol concentration at or below 0.3 percent. Therefore, all of the
`
`plant material stored in the Panther Greenhouse by OHC was legally “Industrial Hemp” and
`
`not “marijuana”.
`
`23.
`
`
`
`At all relevant times the industrial hemp stored in the Panther Greenhouse was the
`
`sole property of OHC and Pitts, and no other third party had any claim of right to the
`
`industrial hemp. At all relevant times, only OHC and/or Pitts had the right to possession of
`
`the industrial hemp.
`
`24.
`
`
`
`From approximately November of 2019 through April 22nd, 2020, OHC and Pitts
`
`would store additional industrial hemp at the Panther Greenhouse. On April 22nd, 2020,
`
`OHC and Pitts had not less than five thousand (5,000) pounds of industrial hemp stored in
`
`the Panther Greenhouse.
`
`
`
`6 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`On April 22nd, 2020, Defendants John Does 1 through 20, acting under color of law
`
`25.
`
`under the authority of Defendants Josephine County and Jackson County, executed a search
`
`warrant (herein “Warrant”) for the private real property located at 1100 Panther Gulch Road,
`
`Williams, county of Josephine, Oregon (herein “Property”).
`
`26.
`
`
`
`The Warrant is facially invalid and does not comply with the requirements of Oregon
`
`law.
`
`27.
`
`
`
`The Warrant authorized, in relevant part, the seizure of the following:
`
`1. Processed Marijuana
`
`2. Marijuana plants
`
`3. Marijuana concentrate oils
`
`….
`
`15. Any items related to the illegal possession, manufacture or delivery of
`
`Marijuana
`
`(caps in original).
`
`28.
`
`The Warrant did not authorize the seizure of industrial hemp.
`
`29.
`
`Defendants seized OHC/Pitts’ industrial hemp that was stored in the Panther
`
`
`
`
`
`Greenhouse.
`
`7 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 8 of 22
`
`30.
`
`
`
`While Defendants were executing the Warrant, Defendants were advised by persons
`
`who were on the Property that the material in the Panther Greenhouse was industrial hemp,
`
`not Marijuana, and therefore under the terms of the Warrant the Defendants did not have the
`
`lawful authority to seize the industrial hemp. The Defendants explicitly rejected these
`
`warnings and proceeded to seize OHC/Pitts’ property.
`
`31.
`
`
`
`On or about April 23rd, 2020, Defendants filed a document entitled “Supplemental
`
`Order to Search Warrant” (herein “Supplemental Order”) with the Josephine County Circuit
`
`Court for the state of Oregon, seeking permission to destroy the personal property seized at
`
`the Property during the execution of the Warrant, including OHC/Pitts’ industrial hemp. The
`
`Supplemental Order contains knowingly false statements by the Defendants. Defendants
`
`made the false statements in the Supplemental Order in order to cover up the fact that
`
`Defendants had unlawfully taken OHC/Pitts’ property.
`
`32.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, the Defendants have destroyed OHC/Pitts’ industrial
`
`hemp.
`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`At all relevant times, all Defendants have been acting under color of law.
`
`34.
`
`OHC/Pitts’s industrial hemp has a value of not less than $2,000,000.00, or an amount
`
`to be proven at trial.
`
`
`
`8 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 9 of 22
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Violations of the Civil Rights Act – 42 U.S.C. §1983)
`
`COUNT I
`U.S. Const. Fourth Amendment
`Unlawful Seizure
`
`35.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
`
`34 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`36.
`
`
`
`The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the citizens from
`
`unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a warrant to search a person or seize any
`
`thing be supported by probable cause. The Warrant executed by the Defendants was not
`
`supported by probable cause and was therefore obtained in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights
`
`protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
`
`37.
`
`
`
`The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the citizens from
`
`unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any thing to be seized to be particularly
`
`described in a search warrant.
`
`38.
`
`
`
`The Warrant authorized the seizure of Marijuana, not industrial hemp. Defendants
`
`knowingly, intentionally and/or negligently took Plaintiffs’ industrial hemp, in violation of
`
`Plaintiffs’ rights protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
`
`39.
`
`As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs were harmed in the amount of
`
`$2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`9 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 10 of 22
`
`40.
`
`Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their costs,
`
`disbursements and reasonable attorney fees.
`
`COUNT II
`Oregon Const. Article I Section 9
`Unlawful Seizure
`
`41.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
`
`34 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`42.
`
`Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution protects the citizens from
`
`unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a warrant to search a person or seize any
`
`thing be supported by probable cause. The Warrant executed by the Defendants was not
`
`supported by probable cause and was therefore obtained in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights
`
`protected by Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.
`
`43.
`
`
`
`Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution protects the citizens from
`
`unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any thing to be seized to be particularly
`
`described.
`
`44.
`
`
`
`The Warrant authorized the seizure of Marijuana, not industrial hemp. Defendants
`
`knowingly, intentionally and/or negligently took Plaintiffs’ industrial hemp, in violation of
`
`Plaintiffs’ rights protected by Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.
`
`
`
`10 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 11 of 22
`
`As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs were harmed in the amount of
`
`45.
`
`$2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`46.
`
`Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their costs,
`
`disbursements and reasonable attorney fees.
`
`COUNT III
`U.S. Const. Fifth Amendment
`Unlawful Taking
`
`47.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
`
`34 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`48.
`
`
`
`The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the citizens from the
`
`taking of property without just compensation
`
`49.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ conduct, taking Plaintiffs’ property, constituted a taking of Plaintiffs’
`
`property under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
`
`50.
`
`Defendants did not take Plaintiffs’ property for public use.
`
`51.
`
`Defendants have not paid Plaintiffs any compensation for the taking of Plaintiffs’
`
`
`
`
`
`property.
`
`
`
`11 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 12 of 22
`
`As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs were harmed in the amount of
`
`52.
`
`$2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`53.
`
`Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their costs,
`
`disbursements and reasonable attorney fees.
`
`COUNT IV
`Oregon Const. Article I Section 18
`Unlawful Taking
`
`54.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
`
`34 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`55.
`
`
`
`Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution protects the citizens from the taking
`
`of property without just compensation
`
`56.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ conduct, taking Plaintiffs’ property, constituted a taking of Plaintiffs’
`
`property under Article I, Section 18 of the Constitution.
`
`57.
`
`Defendants did not take Plaintiffs’ property for public use.
`
`
`
`
`
`58.
`
`Defendants have not paid Plaintiffs any compensation for the taking of Plaintiffs’
`
`property.
`
`12 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 13 of 22
`
`
`
`As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs were harmed in the amount of
`
`59.
`
`$2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`60.
`
`Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their costs,
`
`disbursements and reasonable attorney fees.
`
`COUNT V
`U.S. Const. Fourteenth Amendment
`Equal Protection of the Laws
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
`
`34, 36 through 38, 42 through 44, 48 through 51 and 55 through 58 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`62.
`
`
`
`Other similarly situated businesses and individuals which engage in the growing,
`
`cultivation, processing and sale of industrial hemp and industrial hemp products have not
`
`been singled out by the Defendants for violation of their constitutional rights, as described
`
`above.
`
`63.
`
`
`
`Defendants, and in particular Josephine County, hold particular animosity towards
`
`Plaintiffs, and over the years have engaged in a pattern and practice of unequal treatment
`
`intended to harass and intimidate Plaintiffs, and in particular Pitts. Defendants’ conduct
`
`described herein is part of a pattern and practice of Defendants to deny Plaintiffs equal
`
`13 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 14 of 22
`
`protection of the laws as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
`
`Constitution.
`
`64.
`
`As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs were harmed in the amount of
`
`$2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`65.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their costs,
`
`disbursements and reasonable attorney fees.
`
`COUNT VI
`U.S. Const. Fourteenth Amendment
`Substantive Due Process
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
`
`34, 36 through 38, 42 through 44, 48 through 51 and 55 through 58 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`67.
`
`The actions of the Defendants described above violated the Plaintiffs’ rights to
`
`substantive due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
`
`Constitution.
`
`68.
`
`As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs were harmed in the amount of
`
`$2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`14 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 15 of 22
`
`69.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their costs,
`
`disbursements and reasonable attorney fees.
`
`COUNT VII
`U.S. Const. Fourteenth Amendment
`Procedural Due Process
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
`
`34, 36 through 38, 42 through 44, 48 through 51 and 55 through 58 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`71.
`
`
`
`The actions taken by the Defendants were taken with the intent to deprive the
`
`Plaintiffs of their basic civil rights guaranteed by the United States and Oregon Constitutions.
`
`72.
`
`
`
`The Defendants never provided the Plaintiffs with any process whatsoever before the
`
`Defendants undertook its scheme to harm the Plaintiffs. The Defendants never provided
`
`Plaintiffs with any notice, any opportunity to defend themselves against the Defendants’
`
`actions, an impartial decision-maker, or any post-deprivation procedures whatsoever.
`
`73.
`
`
`
`The Defendants’ actions described throughout this Complaint violated the Plaintiffs’
`
`most basic rights to procedural due process in violation of the United States Constitution.
`
`74.
`
`
`
`As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, the Plaintiffs were harmed in the amount
`
`of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`15 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 16 of 22
`
`75.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, the Matthews are entitled to an award of their costs,
`
`disbursements and reasonable attorney fees.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Violation of Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution)
`
`76.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
`
`34, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`77.
`
`Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution protects the citizens from
`
`unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a warrant to search a person or seize any
`
`thing be supported by probable cause. The Warrant executed by the Defendants was not
`
`supported by probable cause and was therefore obtained in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights
`
`protected by Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.
`
`78.
`
`
`
`Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution protects the citizens from
`
`unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any thing to be seized to be particularly
`
`described.
`
`79.
`
`
`
`The Warrant authorized the seizure of Marijuana, not industrial hemp. Defendants
`
`knowingly, intentionally and/or negligently took Plaintiffs’ industrial hemp, in violation of
`
`Plaintiffs’ rights protected by Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.
`
`
`
`
`
`16 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 17 of 22
`
`As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs were harmed in the amount of
`
`80.
`
`$2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`81.
`
`Pursuant to Deras v. Myers, 272 Or. 47 (1975), Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of
`
`their costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney fees.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Violation of Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution)
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
`
`34, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`83.
`
`
`
`Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution protects the citizens from the taking
`
`of property without just compensation
`
`84.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ conduct, taking Plaintiffs’ property, constituted a taking of Plaintiffs’
`
`property under Article I, Section 18 of the Constitution.
`
`85.
`
`
`
`Defendants did not take Plaintiffs’ property for public use.
`
`86.
`
`Defendants have not paid Plaintiffs any compensation for the taking of Plaintiffs’
`
`property.
`
`
`
`
`
`17 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 18 of 22
`
`As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs were harmed in the amount of
`
`87.
`
`$2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`88.
`
`Pursuant to Deras v. Myers, 272 Or. 47 (1975), Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of
`
`their costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney fees.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Trespass to Chattels)
`
`89.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
`
`34 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`90.
`
`
`
`The Defendants’ conduct was intentional and for the purpose of disturbing,
`
`interfering with, and/or destroying Plaintiffs’ possession of the industrial hemp.
`
`91.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ destruction of Plaintiffs’ industrial hemp damaged Plaintiffs’ chattel to
`
`the point where Plaintiffs possession of the industrial hemp has completely vanished.
`
`92.
`
`
`
`The conduct described herein was performed by all individual defendants within the
`
`course and scope of their employment.
`
`93.
`
`
`
`This complaint serves as formal notice of Plaintiffs’ claims as required by ORS
`
`30.275.
`
`
`
`18 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 19 of 22
`
`94.
`
`
`
`As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, the Plaintiffs were harmed in the amount
`
`of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Conversion)
`
`95.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
`
`34, 92 and 93 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`96.
`
`
`
`The Defendants’ conduct, described above, was intentional and for the purpose of
`
`exercising dominion and control over Plaintiffs’ property.
`
`97.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ conduct did, permanently, interfere with Plaintiffs’ dominion and control
`
`over Plaintiffs’ property – i.e. Plaintiffs’ industrial hemp.
`
`98.
`
`
`
`As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, the Plaintiffs were harmed in the amount
`
`of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Abuse of Process)
`
`99.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
`
`34, 92 and 93 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`19 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 20 of 22
`
`100.
`
`
`
`The Defendants’ actions, were taken for one or more of the following improper
`
`and/or ulterior purposes:
`
`1. To stop the sale of industrial hemp products containing cannabinoids/cannabinols
`
`even though Plaintiffs (and others) have a lawful right to do so;
`
`2. To harass and/or intimidate the Plaintiffs from growing, cultivating, harvesting,
`
`processing and selling industrial hemp and industrial hemp products, even though
`
`Plaintiffs have a lawful right to do so;
`
`101.
`
`Defendants’ actions were willful, and for the purposes described herein.
`
`102.
`
`Defendants actually seized and destroyed the Plaintiffs’ property.
`
`103.
`
`As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, the Plaintiffs were harmed in the amount
`
`
`
`
`
`of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray this Court for the following relief
`
`1. On Plaintiffs’ First Claim For Relief, Count I, for a judgment against the
`
`Defendants in the amount of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`2. On Plaintiffs’ First Claim For Relief, Count II, for a judgment against the
`
`Defendants in the amount of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`3. On Plaintiffs’ First Claim For Relief, Count III, for a judgment against the
`
`Defendants in the amount of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`20 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 21 of 22
`
`4. On Plaintiffs’ First Claim For Relief, Count IV, for a judgment against the
`
`Defendants in the amount of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`5. On Plaintiffs’ First Claim For Relief, Count V, for a judgment against the
`
`Defendants in the amount of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`6. On Plaintiffs’ First Claim For Relief, Count VI, for a judgment against the
`
`Defendants in the amount of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`7. On Plaintiffs’ First Claim For Relief, Count VII, for a judgment against the
`
`Defendants in the amount of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`8. On Plaintiffs’ Second Claim For Relief, for a judgment against the Defendants in
`
`the amount of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`9. On Plaintiffs’ Third Claim For Relief, for a judgment against the Defendants in
`
`the amount of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`10. On Plaintiffs’ Fourth Claim For Relief, for a judgment against the Defendants in
`
`the amount of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`11. On Plaintiffs’ Fifth Claim For Relief, for a judgment against the Defendants in the
`
`amount of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`12. On Plaintiffs’ Sixth Claim For Relief, for a judgment against the Defendants in
`
`the amount of $2,500,000.00, or an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`13. Plaintiffs costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
`
`§1988.
`
`14. Plaintiffs costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Deras v.
`
`Myers, 272 Or. 47 (1975)
`
`
`
`21 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00720-CL Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 22 of 22
`
`15. Any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of May 2020
`
`DAY LAW, PC
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ross Day
`
`Ross A. Day, OSB #002395
`14945 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150A
`Portland, Oregon 97224
`Mailing address: P.O. Box 30148
`Portland, Oregon 97294
`T: 503-747-2705
`E: ross@daylawpc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
