Food and Agricultural Code in California

Based on the foregoing, the court tentatively finds that Smokey and Zeus are potentially dangerous dogs as defined by Food and Agricultural Code Section 31602. If after the hearing on the matter, the court makes this same finding then the Borrellos will be ordered to comply with Article 3, commencing with Section 31641 of the Food and Agricultural Code. Specifically, the dogs must be licensed and vaccinated. Food & Agricultural Code §31641.

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.

In accordance with Food and Agricultural Code section 31622, subdivision (b), a de novo hearing was scheduled for March 19 in this Department. Following oral arguments regarding the timeliness of the appeal, the Court continued the matter and ordered Petitioner to file a supplemental brief on this issue. (3/19/21 Minute Order.)

The Petition seeks to declare “Nala,” a 2-year-old female Pitbull mix, fawn and white in color, as potentially dangerous as defined by Food and Agricultural Code section 31602, subdivisions (b) and (c). (Pet., p. 4.) Respondents own Nala. ( Id. , Maxson Decl., ¶ 4.) II.

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.)

The laws can be harmonized because it is possible to comply with both the Department of Public Health’s regulations and the Food and Agricultural Code’s “pesticide” laws. Further, if there were a There is no conflict between the Department of Public Health’s “chlorine” regulation (22 C.C.R. § 65529) and Food and Agricultural Code section 12973. The regulation does not require public pools to use 10 ppm of chlorine.

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.

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.

(See, e.g., Food and Agricultural Code section 54032; Driscoll v. East-West Dairymen's Association (1942) 52 Cal. App. 2nd 468, 473.) Thus, the Secretary argues, there has been no violation of Raisin Valley Farms' due process or equal protection rights.

(See, e.g., Food and Agricultural Code section 54032; Driscoll v. East-West Dairymen's Association (1942) 52 Cal. App. 2nd 468, 473.) Thus, the Secretary argues, there has been no violation of Raisin Valley Farms' due process or equal protection rights.

(See, e.g., 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.

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.

The Petition sought to declare two adult Pitbulls, Kaitlin and Corn Dog (the “Dogs”), potentially dangerous as defined by Food and Agricultural Code section 31602, subdivision (b). (Pet., p. 2:3-8.) An initial hearing on the Petition took place on December 22, 2020 before the Hon. Edward Simpson in Department 26. (12/20/20 Minute Order.)

("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

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.)

( Id. ) Pursuant to Food and Agricultural Code sections 31641 through 31646, the Court requires (1) that Respondent notify the appropriate division of animal control within two working days of moving or transferring ownership; (2) that Respondent keep Axel in a secure enclosure that prevents Axel from escaping, is suitable to prevent the entry of young children and suitable to confine a vicious dog as defined by Food and Agricultural Code section 31605; (3) that the enclosure provides an adequate

Accordingly, nothing in California Food and Agricultural Code sections 31601, et. seq; Riverside County Code of Ordinances, §§ 6.08.010-6.08.230; 6.1 et. seq., or Riverside County Code of Ordinances, § 6.16.010 imposed a mandatory duty on County. Riverside County Code of Ordinances, Title 1, Section 1.04.010 defines “shall” as mandatory.

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

Accordingly, nothing in California Food and Agricultural Code §§ 31601, et. seq.; Riverside County Code of Ordinances, §§ 6.08.010-6.08.230; 6.1 et. seq., or Riverside County Code of Ordinances, § 6.16.010 imposed a mandatory duty on County. Riverside County Code of Ordinances, Title 1, Section 1.04.010 defines “shall” as mandatory.

Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to summary adjudication on its negligence claim against Defendant on the grounds that (a) Defendant failed to adequately label the bags of fenugreek seeds in compliance with Food and Agricultural Code §52452; (b) this violation of §52452 constituted negligence per se; (c) as a result of Defendant's failure to properly label the bags of seeds, Plaintiff planted the seeds and suffered an infestation of groundsel and other weeds; and (d) the cost of eradicating the groundsel

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.

On September 28, 2020, the court entered judgment in favor of Respondent California Department of Food and Agricultural (CDFA). Petitio|ner Farmdale Creamery, Inc. (Farmdale) had sought a writ of mandate setting aside fees assessed by CDFA. The court denied writ relief. The court also denied Farmdale's request for a declaration that CDFA's Quota Implementation Plan (QIP) ran afoul of the Food and Agricultural Code.

Petitioner seeks a trial de novo by this court pursuant to California Food and Agriculture Code section 31622, which provides that after an administrative hearing “[i]f the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog contests the determination, they may, within five days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision of the court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction.” (Food & Ag. Code §31622(a).)

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.)

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.)

and Agricultural Code section 12999.5, and, more fundamentally, its implementing regulation contained in California Code of Regulations, title 3, section 6766, subdivision (c).

Monsanto includes a lengthy discussion of the regulations under the Food and Agricultural Code, which states that it intends to “occupy the whole field of regulation regarding the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides to the exclusion of all local regulation.” (Food & Ag. Code, § 11501.1, subd. (a).) Monsanto cites to Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v.

Food & Ag. Code §31752.2 (a). Any person who provides false ownership information during this relinquishment shall be liable to the true owner of the cat in the amount of $1,000. Food & Ag. Code §31752.2(b). 2. AB 2754 Assembly Bill (AB) 2754 amended Food & Ag. Code sections 31752 and 31754 in 2000. RJN Ex. 11.

(SAC, ¶ 43.b.xxi), which implies a pecuniary motive for Defendant not to make the disclosures to Plaintiff required by Food & Ag C. §§ 52671 – 56351.

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).

Plaintiffs contend the Court erred in failing to give Plaintiffs’ proposed jury instruction dealing with defense counsel’s statement related to insurance; failing to give the instruction on alternative causation (CACI 434); failing to give the instruction on res ipsa loquitur (CACI 417); and, failing to give the negligence per se instruction based on Food & Ag. Code §17121. The insurance issue has been discussed above.

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.

(4) Those substances designated by the Director of Food and Agriculture as restricted materials pursuant to Section 14004.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code which have known, adverse human health risks. (5) Substances for which an information alert has been issued by the repository of current data established pursuant to Section 147.2.” (Labor Code, § 6382, subd. (b) [emphasis added].)

The subject matter of the present motions is the validity of the California Cut Flower Commission ("the Commission"), which was established pursuant to Food and Agricultural Code sections 77901, et seq., in 1990, and the advertising and promotional activities carried out by the Commission, which are financed through mandatory assessments on cut flower producers, as well as plaintiff's liability for payment of allegedly unpaid assessments.

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.)

DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION ABUSED DISCRETION BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE 11454.2 BY FAILING TO CONSULT WITH DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE AND IN OTHER RESPECTS. (PB)

The Court finds that the evidence presented establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject dog is "potentially dangerous" as proscribed in Food and Agriculture Code 31602. The Court will sign the proposed Order.

(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.)

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

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.

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.)

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.)

Plaintiffs further allege: Reynolds Packing failed to comply with the parties’ agreement and its statutory duties to Plaintiffs by failing to market and sell the squash in a fair and reasonable manner, by failing to timely remit to Plaintiff the full amount due and the accounting required under Food & Agriculture Code sections 56273 and 56273.1.

Analysis The Quarantine Violations Constitute Unprofessional Conduct The Board found that Petitioners are subject to disciplinary action under Business and Professions Code section 4883(g), in conjunction with Food and Agricultural Code sections 9562, 9563, 9564, and 9691, because Dr.

Code §§820.4815.2; see Food & Agriculture Code § 31108) The causes of action for claim and delivery also fail because there is no allegation that defendants have possession of the dog. (See, Stockton Morris Plan Co. v. Mariposa County (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 210, 215) Further, writ of possession is not a cause of action. The negligence cause of action fails for the additional reasons that defendants cannot be liable for negligence (Gov.

The relief Petitioner prays for exceeds the parameters of the appeal authorized by Food & Agriculture Code §31622(b). Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5(b) provides that the Court’s inquiry into the validity of any final administrative order shall extend to the questions whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion.

Specifically, although not alleged in the complaint, B&H contends that the shipment of bulbs contaminated with an invasive and noxious weed violated provisions of the California Food and Agriculture Code. Maveridge contends the court cannot consider the declaration submitted in opposition to the demurrer. Maveridge argues that the alleged violations of the Food and Agriculture Code do not give rise to a cause of action for negligence.

The language concluding section 51201, subdivision (a) (“and industrial hemp cultivated in accordance with Division 24 (commencing with Section 81000) of the Food and Agricultural Code”) was added in 2019, effective, January 1, 2020, by Senate Bill No. 527 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.). (Stats. 2019, ch. 273, § 1.)

Additionally, the statute does not invalidate any provision contained in the Health and Safety Code, Fish and Game Code, Food and Agricultural Code, or Division 7 of the Water Code, if the agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof constitute a nuisance, public or private, as specifically defined or described in any of those provisions. (Civ. Code 3482.5(c).)

In its advertising, USI stated it specialized in procuring policies for food and agricultural business and was expert at determining the risks to those businesses. In its examples of those special risks, it listed food contamination and in stating policies it could obtain it listed product contamination coverage.

The petition is based upon the provisions of Food & Agriculture Code §§ 31601, et seq., which set forth a progressive statutory scheme designed to address the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.

Food & Agriculture Code section 31600, 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.) The 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. (Cal. Food & Agric. Code, § 31621.)

(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.

California Food and Agricultural Code section 4511(b) provides that highest bidder for a carnival contract still may not be awarded the contract: "If a county fair or citrus fruit fair enters into a carnival contract with a person other than the highest bidder, it shall submit a justification for that action to the department." (Food & Agric.

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.)

(Food & Ag. Code §§ 4351, 4353.) The Del Mar Race Track is owned by Defendant 22nd Agricultural Association, and "[a]ny lease or agreement shall be on behalf of the 22nd District Agricultural Association, and the district shall continue in control of its property, subject to the conditions and terms of that lease or agreement." (Food & Ag. Code § 4353.) Del Mar TC is the entity currently leasing the Del Mar Race Track and operating the race meets at the Del Mar Race Track. (Rubenstein Decl. ¶ 3.)

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.

(Compare Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2020-04, 416-18.406 (f) (“A final order issued under this chapter may be appealed to the Superior Court in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5.”) with Food & Agriculture Code § 31622 (“If the original hearing held pursuant to Section 31621 was before a hearing entity other than a court of the jurisdiction, appeal shall be to the superior court.”).)

Food & Agriculture Code Section 19010(a), etc. Defendant also cites Animal Legal Defense Fund v. California Exposition (2015) 239 Cal. App. 4th 1286, in its Reply on the standing issue, but that case dealt with taxpayer standing, not standing under the UCL. Both of the Parties have failed to present sufficient legal authority for the Court to determine whether or not Defendant is a business within the meaning of the UCL.

Here, it appears that the court’s prior decision was based on an incorrect reading of section 54150’s language, caused in part by the parties’ failure to cite to Food and Agriculture Code section 47, which clarifies that “may” is intended to indicate permissive rather than mandatory language.

Food & Agriculture Code Provisions: To perfect a lien under the Commercial Code, a producer must follow the provisions noted above.

Food and Agricultural Code The use of any pesticide shall not conflict with labeling registered pursuant to the Food and Agricultural (F&A Code) which is delivered with the pesticide or with any additional limitations applicable to the conditions of any permit issued by the director or commissioner. F&A Code §12973. D. Statement of Facts 1. Background On December 8, 1987, the Board issued to Marshall Operator's License No. OPR 7983.

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).

(Complaint ¶2) California’s Food & Agriculture Code (“FAC”) § 81006(d)(3), effective January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Food and Agriculture [“CDFA”] to establish sampling procedures and requires that the laboratory test report for THC content be issued by a laboratory approved by the Department. FAC §81006(d)(5).

(Complaint ¶2) California’s Food & Agriculture Code (“FAC”) § 81006(d)(3), effective January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Food and Agriculture [“CDFA”] to establish sampling procedures and requires that the laboratory test report for THC content be issued by a laboratory approved by the Department. FAC §81006(d)(5).

(Complaint ¶2) California’s Food & Agriculture Code (“FAC”) § 81006(d)(3), effective January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Food and Agriculture [“CDFA”] to establish sampling procedures and requires that the laboratory test report for THC content be issued by a laboratory approved by the Department. FAC §81006(d)(5).

(Complaint ¶2) California’s Food & Agriculture Code (“FAC”) § 81006(d)(3), effective January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Food and Agriculture [“CDFA”] to establish sampling procedures and requires that the laboratory test report for THC content be issued by a laboratory approved by the Department. FAC §81006(d)(5).

(Complaint ¶2) California’s Food & Agriculture Code (“FAC”) § 81006(d)(3), effective January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Food and Agriculture [“CDFA”] to establish sampling procedures and requires that the laboratory test report for THC content be issued by a laboratory approved by the Department. FAC §81006(d)(5).

(Complaint ¶2) California’s Food & Agriculture Code (“FAC”) § 81006(d)(3), effective January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Food and Agriculture [“CDFA”] to establish sampling procedures and requires that the laboratory test report for THC content be issued by a laboratory approved by the Department. FAC §81006(d)(5).

(Complaint ¶2) California’s Food & Agriculture Code (“FAC”) § 81006(d)(3), effective January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Food and Agriculture [“CDFA”] to establish sampling procedures and requires that the laboratory test report for THC content be issued by a laboratory approved by the Department. FAC §81006(d)(5).

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.

California’s Food & Agriculture Code (“Code”) § 401.5 states: “The department shall seek to protect the general welfare and economy of the state and seek to maintain the economic well-being of agriculturally dependent rural communities in this state.” (FAC ¶5.)

California’s Food & Agriculture Code (“Code”) § 401.5 states: “The department shall seek to protect the general welfare and economy of the state and seek to maintain the economic well-being of agriculturally dependent rural communities in this state.” (FAC ¶5.)

California’s Food & Agriculture Code (“Code”) § 401.5 states: “The department shall seek to protect the general welfare and economy of the state and seek to maintain the economic well-being of agriculturally dependent rural communities in this state.” (FAC ¶5.)

California’s Food & Agriculture Code (“Code”) § 401.5 states: “The department shall seek to protect the general welfare and economy of the state and seek to maintain the economic well-being of agriculturally dependent rural communities in this state.” (FAC ¶5.)

California’s Food & Agriculture Code (“Code”) § 401.5 states: “The department shall seek to protect the general welfare and economy of the state and seek to maintain the economic well-being of agriculturally dependent rural communities in this state.” (FAC ¶5.)

California’s Food & Agriculture Code (“Code”) § 401.5 states: “The department shall seek to protect the general welfare and economy of the state and seek to maintain the economic well-being of agriculturally dependent rural communities in this state.” (FAC ¶5.)

(Complaint ¶2) California’s Food & Agriculture Code § 81006(d)(3), effective January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Food and Agriculture [“CDFA”] to establish sampling procedures and requires that the laboratory test report for THC content be issued by a laboratory approved by the Department. FAC §81006(d)(5).

(Complaint ¶2) California’s Food & Agriculture Code § 81006(d)(3), effective January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Food and Agriculture [“CDFA”] to establish sampling procedures and requires that the laboratory test report for THC content be issued by a laboratory approved by the Department. FAC §81006(d)(5).

(Complaint ¶2) California’s Food & Agriculture Code § 81006(d)(3), effective January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Food and Agriculture [“CDFA”] to establish sampling procedures and requires that the laboratory test report for THC content be issued by a laboratory approved by the Department. FAC §81006(d)(5).

(Complaint ¶2) California’s Food & Agriculture Code § 81006(d)(3), effective January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Food and Agriculture [“CDFA”] to establish sampling procedures and requires that the laboratory test report for THC content be issued by a laboratory approved by the Department. FAC §81006(d)(5).

(Complaint ¶2) California’s Food & Agriculture Code § 81006(d)(3), effective January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Food and Agriculture [“CDFA”] to establish sampling procedures and requires that the laboratory test report for THC content be issued by a laboratory approved by the Department. FAC §81006(d)(5).

(Complaint ¶2) California’s Food & Agriculture Code § 81006(d)(3), effective January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Food and Agriculture [“CDFA”] to establish sampling procedures and requires that the laboratory test report for THC content be issued by a laboratory approved by the Department. FAC §81006(d)(5).

(Complaint ¶2) California’s Food & Agriculture Code § 81006(d)(3), effective January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Food and Agriculture [“CDFA”] to establish sampling procedures and requires that the laboratory test report for THC content be issued by a laboratory approved by the Department. FAC §81006(d)(5).

The Complaint refers to Food & Agriculture Code section 31601 et seq. (Compl. ¶ 16). This set of statutes provide authority for a city or county to impound dogs that are vicious or potentially dangerous and provide for due process for the owner of the dog to have a hearing for the removal of the dog and for the state to impose fines. Defendants argue they do not create a private right of action for persons to sue civilly.

(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."

This section discusses the statutory duties these defendants had as “commission merchant” (e.g., Food & Ag. Code, §§ 56272, 56273, 56273.1) to provide prompt accountings to RNS Farms.

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