Laws that Govern the Use of Pesticides

Useful Rulings on Use of Pesticides

Rulings on Use of Pesticides

1-25 of 110 results

GRUENBACHER V. PATTERSON ENTERPRISES LP

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.

  • Hearing

SANTA FE NURSERY V. DIRECTOR, ET AL.

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).)

  • Hearing

CITY OF ANTIOCH VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION

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.

  • Hearing

WATANABE ET AL. V. CASTECH PEST SERVICES ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GARY MATTES VS. GEORGE PERRY AND SONS, INC.,

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.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Michael Mulvihill

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

PHAM VS. JASMINE PLACE

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.)

  • Hearing

STACY ZEPIEN VS BOSKOVICH FARMS INC ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE, A NONPROFIT, UNICORPORATED ASSOCIATION VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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.

  • Hearing

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE, A NONPROFIT, UNICORPORATED ASSOCIATION VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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.

  • Hearing

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE, A NONPROFIT, UNICORPORATED ASSOCIATION VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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.)

  • Hearing

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE, A NONPROFIT, UNICORPORATED ASSOCIATION VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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.)

  • Hearing

ENVIRONMENTAL VS CA DEPT OF PESTICIDE

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)

  • Hearing

NORMA ALVARADO ET AL VS WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS LLC E

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.

  • Hearing

PHAM VS. JASMINE PLACE

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.)

  • Hearing

PARAQUAT CASES

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.)

  • Hearing

QUALITY FRESH FARMS, INC. V. PARRA

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.

  • Hearing

MORALES VS WELL-PICT

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

  • Hearing

HEROLD VS. SURFCREST CORPORATION

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.

  • Hearing

MORALES VS WELL-PICT

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

  • Hearing

MORALES VS WELL-PICT

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

  • Hearing

MORALES VS WELL-PICT

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.

  • Hearing

MORALES VS WELL-PICT

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.

  • Hearing

MORALES VS WELL-PICT

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.

  • Hearing

JULIE MANALANSAN VS JOSE MONTES, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE, A NONPROFIT, UNICORPORATED ASSOCIATION VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.