Food and Agriculture Code

Useful Rulings on Food and Agriculture Code

Recent Rulings on Food and Agriculture Code

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

    Jun 23, 2020

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

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

    Dec 18, 2019

  • 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

    Oct 25, 2019

  • 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

    Aug 27, 2019

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

    May 15, 2019

  • 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

    Jan 18, 2019

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

    Jan 15, 2019

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

    Dec 10, 2018

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

    Dec 10, 2018

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

    Nov 19, 2018

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

    Nov 19, 2018

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

    Oct 30, 2018

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

    Sep 28, 2018

BIDART BROS. V. CALIFORNIA APPLE COMMISSION

Food and Agricultural Code section 63901 also states that California’s agricultural and seafood industries are integral to its economy. (UMF II, No. 5.) Commission law provides that the establishment of the Commission is intended to enhance the industry’s advertising, promotion, marketing research and production research and move the apple industry toward its potential resulting in increased consumer value and enhanced grower returns. (UMF II, No. 4, 6.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CITY OF ANTIOCH VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION

The City argues that penalty must be set aside because, under California law, the regulation of swimming pool sanitation is governed exclusively by the Health and Safety Code’s “Swimming Pool Sanitation” laws, which take precedence over any conflicting “registration requirements” in the Food and Agricultural Code. Standard of Review The City does not challenge DPR’s factual findings.

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2018

CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT V. CAL. MID-STATE FAIR HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The District relies on the Food and Agricultural Code sections as they existed in 2003, the year in which the parties entered into the alleged contract.

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2018

JOHNSON, ELAN VS GRAND AVENUE IMAGING INC.

Legal Standard A petition to determine if a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious may be brought pursuant to California Food and Agricultural Code sections 31601, et seq. A hearing on such a petition must be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of the petition and notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. (Cal. Food & Agric. Code, § 31621.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CITY OF BURBANK ANIMAL SHELTER VS RICK PATHI

Based on the foregoing, the Court may determine that the dog that is the subject of this petition is “vicious” as defined by California Food and Agricultural Code section 31603(a). Accordingly, the petition is granted. Petitioner to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CITY OF BURBANK ANIMAL SHELTER VS RICK PATHI

Pursuant to California Food and Agricultural Code section 31621, “[t]he owner or keeper of the dog shall be served with notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition, either personally or by first-class mail with return receipt requested” and “[t]he hearing shall be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog.” (Cal. Food & Agric. Code, § 31621.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2018

  • Judge

    Yolanda Orozco or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHNSON, ELAN VS GRAND AVENUE IMAGING INC.

Legal Standard A petition to determine if a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious may be brought pursuant to California Food and Agricultural Code sections 31601, et seq. A hearing on such a petition must be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of the petition and notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. (Cal. Food & Agric. Code, § 31621.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHNSON, ELAN VS GRAND AVENUE IMAGING INC.

Legal Standard A petition to determine if a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious may be brought pursuant to California Food and Agricultural Code sections 31601, et seq. A hearing on such a petition must be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of the petition and notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. (Cal. Food & Agric. Code, § 31621.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHNSON, ELAN VS GRAND AVENUE IMAGING INC.

Legal Standard A petition to determine if a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious may be brought pursuant to California Food and Agricultural Code sections 31601, et seq. A hearing on such a petition must be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of the petition and notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. (Cal. Food & Agric. Code, § 31621.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PETITION OF DONNA TAVAKKOLV

("Petitioner") to strike Respondent COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES' Memorandum of Costs in its entirety, on the grounds (1) the recovery of Respondent's costs is not authorized by state and local laws governing animal control proceedings, i.e. the California Food and Agricultural Code and the San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances, and (2) Petitioner's fee waiver precludes the recovery of costs by Respondent, or, alternatively, Respondent's costs be reduced to the amounts set forth

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DAVID GENTRY VS. KAMALA HARRIS

(9) The Department of Food and Agriculture for the costs resulting from the notification provisions set forth in Section 5343.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code. (10) The department for the costs associated with subdivisions (d) and (e) of Section 27560.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2017

1 2     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.