Food and Agriculture Code

Useful Rulings on Food and Agriculture Code

Recent Rulings on Food and Agriculture Code

BRISTER V. YOUNG

and Agricultural Code in loaning or advancing money in connection with any activity mentioned in said title or any corporation, association, syndicate, joint stock company, or partnership engaged exclusively in the business of marketing agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, dairy, live stock, poultry and bee products on a cooperative nonprofit basis in loaning or advancing money to the members thereof or in connection with any such business or any corporation securing money or credit from any federal intermediate

  • Hearing

ASSEMI BROTHERS, LLC V. WONDEFUL PISTACHIOS AND ALMONDS, LLC

Plaintiffs allege that the decision to remove Darius and Farshid Assemi as directors of Wonderful Almond Cooperative was unlawful and violated Food and Agriculture Code section 54150, and thus the decision was void as a matter of law. (SAC, ¶ 216.)

  • Hearing

CITY OF BURBANK ANIMAL SHELTER VS STEPHANIE SCHESTAG

The Petition seeks to declare Louie, an 8-year-old white American Bulldog, potentially dangerous as defined by Food and Agricultural Code section 31602. (Pet., ¶¶, 2, 4.) Respondent was personally served with this Petition on April 22, 2020. (4/23/20 Proof of Service.) No opposition was filed. At the initial hearing on August 18, 2020, Respondent stated she did not have an opportunity to serve Petitioner with newly produced evidence. (8/18/20 Minute Order.)

  • Hearing

CITY OF BURBANK ANIMAL SHELTER VS STEPHANIE SCHESTAG

Based on the evidence presented, Louie is found, by a preponderance of the evidence, to be a potentially dangerous dog as defined by Food and Agricultural Code 31602, subdivision (c). B. Mandatory Fines Food and Agricultural Code section 31662 requires that a violation involving a potentially dangerous dog be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00. Any fines imposed must be paid to the city or county in which the violation occurred to defray the costs of implementing these regulations. (Food & Agric.

  • Hearing

INLAND VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF POMONA VS JOSE BLAIR

Based on the evidence presented, Champ and Zoey are found, by a preponderance of the evidence, to be potentially dangerous dogs as defined by Food and Agricultural Code 31602, subdivision (c). B. Conditions Upon Release of the Dogs Food and Agricultural Code section 31621 provides the Court with the authority to “find, upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious and make other orders authorized by this chapter.” (Italics added.)

  • Hearing

TAKEMORI FARMS INC. VS REYNOLDS PACKING CO. DBA M& R COMPANY

At all times herein, M&R was acting as a California-licensed commission merchant, and as such, agreed to follow and abide by the covenants and conditions of Food and Agriculture Code sections 52671 through 56283. Plaintiff did not waive any of the referenced statutory provisions in writing or otherwise. Id., para. 8.

  • Hearing

KUBO FARMS/ YEUNG FARMS VS REYNOLDS PACKING CO.

Food and Agriculture Code sections 56272 and 56273 provide as follows: “When requested by his consignors, a commission merchant shall, before the close of the next business day following such request, transmit to the consignor a true written report of the quantity sold and the selling price.” (Food & Agr. Code, § 56272.)

  • Hearing

STOP QIP TAX COALITION VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE

Background California's milk-pooling scheme is codified in Food and Agricultural Code^ § 62700 etseq. Few courts have been required to write about this scheme. In Ponderosa Dairy v. Lyons (9th Cir. 2001) 259 F.3d 1148,^ the Court of Appeals provided the following summary: California has operated a unique milk price stabilization and marketing program since the 1930's. The program classifies milk products into five categories: Class 1 includes ^ See Food and Agricultural Code section 62723(a).

  • Hearing

FARMDALE CREAMERY INC VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE

(Farmdale) is liable for a Quota Implementation Plan (QIP) Assessment fee because non-party GH Processing and two affiliated producers of raw milk are a single "producer-handler" and "person" under Food and Agriculture Code sections 62708 and 62708.5.^ Were provisions in these two sections suspended when the United States ^ Undesignated statutory references are to the Food and Agriculture Code. "producer-handler."

  • Hearing

INLAND VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF POMONA VS JORGE HIDALGO

Determination that Dog is Vicious Petitioner seeks a determination that Kaliman or Caliman, an adult male, brindle and white Belgian Malinois (“Kaliman”) owned by Respondent, is vicious as defined by Food and Agricultural Code section 31603, subdivision (a). (Pet., p. 2:3-8.)

  • Hearing

COALITION FOR AGRICULTURAL RIGHTS V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

The Urgency Ordinance prohibited the cultivation of industrial hemp in the unincorporated portions of the County, with exceptions, including for commercial growers who received a registration from the County’s Agricultural Commissioner under Food and Agricultural Code section 81000 et seq. (County RFJN, Ex. A, §§ 4, 5.) Cultivation under this exception was only permitted for the term of the registration. (Id. at § 5.A.2.)

  • Hearing

CITY OF COMMERCE VS RANDOLPH SAUCEDO

Discussion Petitioner seeks a Court order deeming Respondent’s tan/yellow Labrador Retriever named “Hotshot” (the “Dog”) “vicious” as defined by Food and Agricultural Code section 31603, subdivision (a). (Pet., ¶¶ 2, 5(a).) Petitioner presents the following evidence: On October 16, 2019, Juan Diaz (“Diaz”) was exiting a Burger King location in Commerce, CA. (Mot., Swisher Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. D.)

  • Hearing

LAGUNA GREENBELT INC VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

In the absence of any specific facts, the AG ended the opinion as follows: furthers the statutory duty of the Board to conduct "an agricultural themed exposition" and a fair or fairs with respect to industrial and commercial products of Califomia (Food and Agricultural Code, §§ 3301, 3331) vis-a-vis (2) when the purpose of the lease was purely for the private benefit of the lessee, such as a housing project or a shopping

  • Hearing

INLAND VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF POMONA VS MERCEDES JAMES, ET AL.

The Court finds Petitioner’s request for an order for Respondents to meet the conditions described in Food and Agricultural Code sections 31641 through 31644 to be appropriate under the circumstances. Respondents are thus ordered to meet the conditions described in Food and Agricultural Code sections 31641 through 31644.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CRISTINE PROCTOR V. JERRY HENRY

Defendants suggest that plaintiff be made to allege that the dogs previously inflicted severe injury on or killed another human being, or that the dogs were registered as “potentially dangerous,” pursuant to Food and Agriculture Code section 31601, et. seq. Defendants also argue that plaintiff must add specificity regarding how defendants knew that plaintiff would be arriving on the day and time of the incident.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SAVE OUR BIRDS VS ANNETTE JONES, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a cause of action for violation of California Food and Agriculture Code, Section 9562. Defendants filed a demurrer to the first cause of action for injunctive relief under California Food and Agriculture Code, Section 9562 on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants.

  • Hearing

ANTHONY CARNEVALE JR VS JOSE SANCHEZ ET AL

On March 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint to allege additional facts and a violation of section 16902 of the Food and Agricultural Code. On March 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a nonparty to appear and testify at a deposition due to this non-party’s failure to appear at three previously noticed depositions. Trial is set for August 5, 2019.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, ANIMAL SERVICES DIVISION V. JOHNSON

Food and Agricultural Code section 31683 expressly allows local governments to adopt and enforce their own programs for controlling potentially dangerous or vicious animals.

  • Hearing

GRUENBACHER V. PATTERSON ENTERPRISES LP

“Despicable conduct” under §3294 is defined as conduct that has “the character of outrage frequently associated with crime or in blatant violation of law or policy. “ Here, the Tulare County Department of Agriculture made a finding that the defendants violated Food and Agriculture Code §12973 and California Code of Regulations Title 3 §6614 when they sprayed the Vulcan pesticide in an area adjacent to a residence where it was reasonably certain that the gas from the pesticide would drift onto the plaintiffs’

  • Hearing

ALEXANDER FISH VS. JENNIFER KAPLAN

(See Food and Agriculture Code §31108.) Plaintiffs admit that Defendant adopted the dog at issue from the Ventura County Animal Shelter, without any allegation the statutory procedure was not followed. (Complaint at ¶8.) Consequently, Plaintiffs lack either an ownership interest in Jack or a right to possess Jack necessary for the tort of conversion. (Hartford Financial Corp. v. Burns (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 591, 598.)

  • Hearing

ALEXANDER FISH VS. JENNIFER KAPLAN

(See Food and Agriculture Code §31108.) Plaintiffs admit that Defendant adopted the dog at issue from the Ventura County Animal Shelter, without any allegation the statutory procedure was not followed. (Complaint at ¶8.) Consequently, Plaintiffs lack either an ownership interest in Jack or a right to possess Jack necessary for the tort of conversion. (Hartford Financial Corp. v. Burns (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 591, 598.)

  • Hearing

ALEXANDER FISH VS. JENNIFER KAPLAN

., Food and Agricultural Code §31108.) As a result, even if the allegations of the Verified Complaint constituted admissible evidence, Plaintiff would fail to demonstrate the probable validity of his conversion claim.

  • Hearing

ALEXANDER FISH VS. JENNIFER KAPLAN

., Food and Agricultural Code §31108.) As a result, even if the allegations of the Verified Complaint constituted admissible evidence, Plaintiff would fail to demonstrate the probable validity of his conversion claim.

  • Hearing

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT V CALIFORNIA RESOURCES

App. 3rd 875, and the pesticide laws of the Food and Agriculture Code at issue in Aantex Pest Control v. Structural Pest Control Board (1980) 108 Cal. App. 3rd 696. "The responsible corporate officer doctrine was developed by the United States Supreme Court to hold corporate officers in responsible positions of authority personally liable for violating strict liability statutes protecting the public welfare." (People v. Roscoe (2008) 169 Cal. App. 4th 829, 831 (2008) (citations omitted, emphasis added).

  • Hearing

ALEJANDRO PANAMA LINARES VS ACENSION DELGADO

These persons shall ensure that the dog is on a leash and tagged as a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog by identification tag issued by the county clerk, animal control department, or other agency, as authorized by Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 30850) of Division 14 of the Food and Agricultural Code. In addition, the person shall be liable for any provable damage done to the premises or facilities by his or her dog.

  • Hearing

1 2     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.