“[The] Food and Agricultural Code section 12973 provides: ‘The use of any pesticide shall not conflict with labeling registered pursuant to this chapter which is delivered with the pesticide or with any additional limitations applicable to the conditions of any permit issued by the director or commissioner.’” (Patterson v. Dept. of Pesticide (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 411, 417.)
"Every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide . . . shall obtain a certificate of registration from the department before the pesticide is offered for sale." (Food Agr. Code, Sec. 12811.) Each applicant for a certificate of registration must identify every pesticide it intends to manufacture or sell and its ingredients. (Food Agr. Code, Sec. 12821.) The registrant must attach to each container or package of pesticide to be sold a plainly printed label identifying the pesticide and the registered manufacturer, importer, or vendor. (Food Agr. Code, Sec. 12851.) "The registrant of any pesticide that is sold or delivered to a consumer in this state shall furnish printed directions for use, and dilution if any, upon the label, or shall enclose the printed directions in each container or package of the pesticide." (Food Agr. Code, Sec. 12852.) "If a manufacturer, importer, or dealer in pesticides that applies for registration of pesticides has complied with this chapter and the regulations that are adopted pursuant to it, the director shall register each pesticide that is sought to be registered and issue a certificate of registration to the applicant that authorizes the manufacture and sale of the pesticide in this state." (Food Agr. Code, Sec. 12815.)
The registration expires on December 31 of each year, unless renewed. (Food Agr. Code, Sec. 12817.)
Each application for registration of a pesticide product or to amend the labeling of a pesticide product must be accompanied by six copies of the product labeling. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, Sec. 6170.) Label amendments must be approved pursuant to section 6170 of the regulations, but they are not subject to separate registration renewal requirements. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, Sec. 6215.) "No label may represent a registered pesticide and no supplemental or associated information, whether written or oral, may represent a registered pesticide until such label and information is accepted by the director as part of the labeling." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, Sec. 6238.)
The labeling requirements imposed by the director's regulations must meet, but may not exceed, the current United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) labeling requirements; the director's labeling requirements apply equally to pesticides registered by the U.S. EPA and submitted to the director for registration, and those requiring registration only pursuant to Food and Agricultural Code section 12811. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, Sec. 6243.) The assigned registration number must appear on the label — the U.S. EPA registration number if one has been assigned, or the state registration number if no federal number has been assigned. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, Sec. 6241.) Patterson v. Dept. of Pesticide, 161 Cal.App.4th 411, 427-28 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)
“Food and Agricultural Code section 12972 provides: "The use of any pesticide by any person shall be in such a manner as to prevent substantial drift to nontarget areas."” Patterson v. Dept. of Pesticide, 161 Cal.App.4th 411, 429 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)
Food and Agricultural Code section 12999.5 provides that in lieu of a civil prosecution by the Director, the appropriate regulatory authority may levy a civil penalty against a person violating the relevant provision of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each violation. Before a civil penalty is levied, however, the person charged with the violation shall be given a written notice of the proposed action and shall have the right to request a hearing within 20 days after receiving notice of the proposed action. The person may appeal the decision to the Director within 30 days of receiving a copy of the hearing officer’s decision, and if appropriate, may seek review of the Director's decision within 30 days of the date of the Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. (See State ex rel. Dept of Pesticide Regulation v. Pet Food Express (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 841, 846.)
See also State Ex Rel. Dept. of Pesticide Regulation v. Pet Food Express (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 841
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 3 Sec. 6130 concerns penalties for violations of the Food and Agricultural Code Pesticide regulations, and provides in relevant part:
(Cal. Code Regs. tit. 3 Sec. 6130)
Here, the plaintiffs’ residence was adjacent to the site where the Vulcan pesticide was intended to be sprayed. Thus, it is unlikely that the defendants could not have noticed the plaintiffs’ residence across the street before they applied the pesticide to their property.
Tulare County, CA
The Commissioner indicated that the evidence reasonably demonstrated the illness and symptoms were caused by Telon C-35, a pesticide, and under the circumstances, petitioner was required to but failed to ensure that all employees who exhibited illness symptoms caused by the pesticide, or were otherwise exposed to such a pesticide, were taken to a physician immediately. (Food & Agricultural Code, §§ 12973/12999.5, as implemented by Cal.Code Regs, tit. 3, § 6766, subdivision (c).)
Santa Barbara County, CA
The City admits that Liquichlor is a pesticide subject to the state’s pesticide laws, and that, as a pesticide, Liquichlor must be used in accordance with its label. The City also admits that the label for Liquichlor prohibits entry into a swimming pool when the chemical concentration exceeds 4 ppm.
Sacramento County, CA
For reasons unknown, Conroy did not apply the proper pesticide. Instead, he mistakenly applied a pesticide known as Cyper TC. He did not leave the mandatory notice informing the Plaintiffs of the type of chemical applied. Plaintiffs allege that when they returned to the apartment on November 4, 2013, they and their children became violently ill. Melissa Watanabe was pregnant at the time. On November 5, 2013, Conroy reported to his supervisor that he may have applied the wrong pesticide.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Fresno County, CA
Code Regs., tit. 3, §6654(b) can be applied, Defendants assert that “[a]ll pesticide applications made by Perry were applied through either chemigation or side-dressing, not foliar spray.” (Defs. UMF 23 (disputed).) According to Defendants, at the time in question, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, §6654(b) was not designed to prevent bee deaths from the methods of pesticide application Perry performed.
Michael Mulvihill
San Joaquin County, CA
Plaintiffs present evidence that according to the pesticide companies, it was JASMINE’s responsibility to give the requisite notices of pesticide treatment and safety. (See PUMF No. 12). Further, Plaintiffs dispute that scientific evidence does not indicate that alleged exposure to pesticides does not cause alopecia and dispute that alopecia is an autoimmune disease and genetic condition. (See Response to UMF Nos. 22 and 23.)
Orange County, CA
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff alleges that when she was an unborn child in utero, her mother worked at Defendants’ farms where her mother was exposed to pesticide spraying that caused Plaintiff birth defects. Plaintiff Stacey Zapien, through her guardian ad litem Mayra Antillon, moves to compel non-party witness Five Star Espinoza Produce, Inc. to produce documents pursuant to a deposition subpoena for production of business records.
Los Angeles County, CA
While Petitioners argue the PEIR did not adequately describe existing pesticide use, the Department contends Petitioners have failed to identify any specific deficiencies, other than the lack of "unreported" pesticide use, which the Department contends was reasonably left out of the PEIR due to its speculative ' The Department contends the PEIR includes sufficient detail where a project-level analysis has been performed.
Sacramento County, CA
While Petitioners argue the PEIR did not adequately describe existing pesticide use, the Department contends Petitioners have failed to identify any specific deficiencies, other than the lack of "unreported" pesticide use, which the Department contends was reasonably left out of the PEIR due to its speculative ' The Department contends the PEIR includes sufficient detail where a project-level analysis has been performed.
Sacramento County, CA
Addendum No. 1 expands the Statewide Program by adding application methods of “Merit 2F” pesticide for the treatment of Japanese beetles. Where the Program allowed the use of Merit 2F brand pesticide on bare soil along the drip line of host plants, the expanded Program increased the treatment area to include turf applications and to specifically allow the use of “boom sprayers.” (Addendum 1 AR 5; see also AR 4047.)
Sacramento County, CA
Addendum No. 1 expands the Statewide Program by adding application methods of “Merit 2F” pesticide for the treatment of Japanese beetles. Where the Program allowed the use of Merit 2F brand pesticide on bare soil along the drip line of host plants, the expanded Program increased the treatment area to include turf applications and to specifically allow the use of “boom sprayers.” (Addendum 1 AR 5; see also AR 4047.)
Sacramento County, CA
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)
San Francisco County, CA
Defendants argue the allegations of breaching a standard of care requiring Defendants to engage in safe farm and pesticide application practices means that any risk of serious harm can be eliminated through safe farm and pesticide application practices such that Defendants’ farming practices would not be an ultrahazardous activity.
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs present evidence that according to the pesticide companies, it was JASMINE’s responsibility to give the requisite notices of pesticide treatment and safety. (See PUMF No. 12). Further, Plaintiffs dispute that scientific evidence does not indicate that alleged exposure to pesticides does not cause alopecia and dispute that alopecia is an autoimmune disease and genetic condition. (See Response to UMF Nos. 22 and 23.)
Orange County, CA
Thus, while Syngenta argues, in essence, that a uniform national pesticide system in which the EPA makes all decisions concerning pesticide use is a superior policy choice, Congress has chosen to draw the preemption provision more narrowly. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has recognized that FIFRA “leaves ample room for States and localities to supplement federal efforts even absent the express regulatory authorization of § 136v(a). (Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier (1991) 501 U.S. 597, 613.)
Contra Costa County, CA
At one point, the SAC refers to a promise to provide pesticide services and, later, for merely providing recommendations. Likewise, Defendants assert that the consideration for such services appears to not be adequately alleged.
Fresno County, CA
More specifically, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate at trial that the hearsay data in the State PUR database from which Exhibit 812 was derived fell within the business records exception to the Hearsay Rule because, inter alia, (i) Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the data in the original pesticide applicator reports was reliable and, in particular, failed to demonstrate that the data in those reports was prepared by someone with personal knowledge thereof; and (ii) Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the
Ventura County, CA
Comply with instructions given by the Association’s agents, vendors and contractors handling the fumigation regarding the fumigation, and sign and complete the required papers and forms relating to the fumigation so that the fumigation can proceed as scheduled, including signing and complete the Occupants Fumigation Notice and Pesticide Disclosure form for Elite Pest Management. Moving Party’s objection to the declaration of Matthew Soleimanpour is sustained. Moving Party to give notice.
Orange County, CA
More specifically, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate at trial that the hearsay data in the State PUR database from which Exhibit 812 was derived fell within the business records exception to the Hearsay Rule because, inter alia, (i) Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the data in the original pesticide applicator reports was reliable and, in particular, failed to demonstrate that the data in those reports was prepared by someone with personal knowledge thereof; and (ii) Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the
Ventura County, CA
More specifically, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate at trial that the hearsay data in the State PUR database from which Exhibit 812 was derived fell within the business records exception to the Hearsay Rule because, inter alia, (i) Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the data in the original pesticide applicator reports was reliable and, in particular, failed to demonstrate that the data in those reports was prepared by someone with personal knowledge thereof; and (ii) Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the
Ventura County, CA
As to (1) above, Plaintiff fails to submit admissible evidence indicating that Westside was the permit holder for pesticide applications at Anacapa Berry Farms at the relevant times in 2007. First, Westside's "hearsay" objection to Plaintiff's Exhibit O is sustained on the ground that the statements therein as to the identity of the permit holder constitute hearsay, and Plaintiff fails to submit evidence establishing that any hearsay exception is applicable.
Ventura County, CA
As to (1) above, Plaintiff fails to submit admissible evidence indicating that Westside was the permit holder for pesticide applications at Anacapa Berry Farms at the relevant times in 2007. First, Westside's "hearsay" objection to Plaintiff's Exhibit O is sustained on the ground that the statements therein as to the identity of the permit holder constitute hearsay, and Plaintiff fails to submit evidence establishing that any hearsay exception is applicable.
Ventura County, CA
As to (1) above, Plaintiff fails to submit admissible evidence indicating that Westside was the permit holder for pesticide applications at Anacapa Berry Farms at the relevant times in 2007. First, Westside's "hearsay" objection to Plaintiff's Exhibit O is sustained on the ground that the statements therein as to the identity of the permit holder constitute hearsay, and Plaintiff fails to submit evidence establishing that any hearsay exception is applicable.
Ventura County, CA
All these actions also occur close in time to when Plaintiff complained to Defendants’ agents about the excessive use of pesticide, and when Plaintiff refused to allow an agent of a hired pest control company to spray pesticide to her unit: an inference of retaliation can be drawn from Plaintiff’s refusal and the subsequent actions of Defendants’ agents. (Id. at ¶ 13.)
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
On or about January 22, petitioners and plaintiffs Environmental Working Group, City of Berkeley, Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network North America, Beyond Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, Californians for Pesticide Reform, and Moms Advocating Sustainability (the “Environmental Working Group Petitioners”) filed their own Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief challenging Respondent/Defendant California Department of Food and Agriculture
Sacramento County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
