State v. Sun Pacific Farming Co.

• Decision Date: 13 January 2000
• Citation: 77 Cal.App.4th 619,92 Cal.Rptr.2d 115
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2000) THE PEOPLE ex rel BILL LOCKYER, as Attorney General, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SUN PACIFIC FARMING CO. et al., Defendants and Appellants. F029664 Filed

92 Cal.Rptr.2d 115 (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2000)

THE PEOPLE ex rel BILL LOCKYER, as Attorney General, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SUN PACIFIC FARMING CO. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

F029664

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Filed 1/13/00

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County.

Arthur E. Wallace, Judge.

(Super. Ct. No. 233315)

Brian C. Leighton and Donald Lescoulie for Defendants and Appellants.

Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, and Charles W. Getz IV, Assistant Attorney General, for the People; Kahn, Soares & Conway, Jan L. Kahn and Rissa A. Stuart for Central California Tristeza Eradication Agency and Kern County Citrus Pest Control District; Plaintiffs and Respondents.

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION^*

OPINION

The People of the State of California, the Central California Tristeza Eradication Agency and the Kern County Citrus Pest Control District (the People) brought an action for abatement of public nuisance against Sun Pacific Farming Co.; Wallich's Ranch Co.; McFarland Ranch; Bob Reniers; South Star Ranch Co.; WCM Farm Co., Ltd.; The Corrotto Co., Inc.; Badger Farming Company, individually and doing business as Sequoia Enterprises; Woody Ranch; and Rolling Hills Ranch (Sun Pacific), among others. The trial court found that Sun Pacific's maintenance of citrus trees infected with the citrus tristeza virus (CTV) constitutes a public nuisance and issued an injunction mandating Sun Pacific to remove all CTV-infected citrus trees. Sun Pacific appeals, alleging error by the trial court in a number of pretrial rulings on the People's in limine motions and the constitutional issues raised in Sun Pacific's affirmative defenses. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 7, 1997, the People filed a complaint against Sun Pacific, alleging four causes of action: 1) violation of Food and Agricultural Code section 5401 et seq.,¹ 2) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., 3) declaratory relief, and 4) injunctive relief. Later, the People moved for a preliminary injunction restraining Sun Pacific from continuing to maintain a public nuisance. On June 16, 1997, the court denied the People's motion, finding that CTV has a lower danger of spreading in the summer months, and there was a reasonable likelihood a trial on the merits could occur before that risk increased.

The People demurred to and moved to strike portions of Sun Pacific's answer to the complaint. Sun Pacific filed its third amended answer and the matter proceeded to trial on October 7, 1997. The People filed several motions in limine to preclude evidence and testimony on relevancy grounds. The trial court granted a number of the People's in limine motions, and the parties agreed to certain facts.

In addition, at the request of the parties, the court ruled on two of Sun Pacific's affirmative defenses: 1) the unconstitutional delegation of legislative and judicial authority in violation of Sun Pacific's Fourteenth Amendment rights, and 2) the alleged violation of Sun Pacific's equal protection rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court rejected both defenses.

The parties subsequently agreed to a stipulated judgment in favor of the People and against Sun Pacific. The court entered judgment, the terms of which provide, in relevant part:

"1. [Sun Pacific's] maintenance of CTV infected citrus trees on real property located in Kern County constitutes a public nuisance pursuant to the Civil Code and Food and Agricultural Code;

"2. An injunction shall issue mandating [Sun Pacific] to remove all CTV infected trees;

"3. [Sun Pacific] shall retain all rights to appeal this Judgment;

"4. As a condition to removing CTV infected trees pending an appeal, [the Kern County Citrus Pest Control District] will post a bond, if allowed or required by law, or, if no bond is allowed or required, [the Kern County Citrus Pest Control District] shall post a surety in the sum of $25.00 per tree ...;

"5. The second cause of action alleging violations of the Business and Professions Code, brought by [the People] shall be bifurcated from this case, and no judgment shall be rendered at this time, in the interest of justice. Said case shall be held in abeyance pending the outcome of [Sun Pacific's] appeal. If the appeal is successful and [Sun Pacific] prevail[s], the People shall dismiss with prejudice the Second Cause of Action, and all claims and remedies sought based upon unfair business practices. Further, if [Sun Pacific's] trees are removed pending resolution on appeal and upon timely notice of the same, the [People] agree to dismiss, with prejudice the Second Cause of Action and all claims and remedies sought based upon unfair business practices. If, however, the matter is remanded back to this court for further proceedings on the merits, and trees have not been removed pursuant to the injunction, the [People] shall retain the right to renew and bring to trial the causes of action based upon unfair business practices.²

"6. [Sun Pacific] may make a further Offer of Proof in writing to this court, as to what would have been established had the court's rulings not been entered the way they were ...."

Sun Pacific filed a supplemental offer of proof and a timely notice of appeal.

FACTUAL HISTORY

A. Citrus Pest District Control Law

California has enacted specific laws to address the control of all types of citrus pests. The Citrus Pest District Control Law (Pest Control Law), codified at section 8401 et seq., provides a procedure "for the organization, operation, government, and dissolution of districts for the more effective control and eradication of citrus pests." ( 8402.) A citrus pest is defined to include "any infectious, transmissible, or contagious disease, any form of animal life, or any form of vegetable life infesting citrus trees or citrus fruits." ( 8406.)

Since the Pest Control Law is not widely known, we now devote space to the review of sections generally relevant to resolution of this case. Pest control districts are formed by a petition, which must be signed by landowners that hold at least 51 percent of the citrus acreage in the district. ( 8451.) The county board of supervisors then declares the district to be duly organized after notice and hearing, finding "the project is feasible and in the interest of the citrus growers of the county[.]" ( 8463; see also 8455-8460.) The district is governed by a five-person board of directors, appointed by the board of supervisors for the county in which the district is located. ( 8501.) In order to serve as a district director, a person must own lands within the district, which are devoted to growing the product for which the district is established. ( 8502.)

Pest control districts have numerous powers. They include the power to sue and be sued; to hold and dispose of real and personal property; to cause assessments to be levied to pay district obligations; to enter into contracts; and to employ persons necessary to carry out the purposes and powers of the district. ( 8551.) Additionally, districts can "[e]radicate, remove, or prevent the spread of any and all citrus pests[;]" "[e]nter into or upon any land included within the boundaries of the district for the purpose of inspecting and treating the citrus trees and other host plants and fruit grown on them[;]" and "[p]erform any and all acts either within or outside the district necessary or proper to fully and completely carry out the purposes for which the district was organized." (Ibid.) Pest control districts are permitted to compensate for the removal of any citrus tree infected with CTV. The maximum amount of compensation is $25 per tree, with a $3,000 cap per geographical acre. ( 8553, 8555.)

The board of directors is required to "formulate an effective plan based on the best known and accepted methods for the control and eradication of the citrus pests within the district." ( 8557.) It must also estimate the costs of operating the plan for the next fiscal year, and adopt a preliminary budget of expenditures for that year. ( 8558-8559.) A hearing must be held by the board on its annual budget. ( 8560, 8568.) Further, the board must file its final budget for each fiscal year with the board of supervisors, which then levies an assessment upon all the citrus trees in the district. ( 8604.)

Landowners can dissolve the district by petition. It must be signed by landowners that hold at least 60 percent of the citrus acreage in the district. ( 8751.) The board of supervisors for the county in which the pest control district is located dissolves the district after notice and hearing, and must find that "dissolution of the district will benefit the citrus industry of the county[.]" ( 8756; see also 8752-8755.)

The Kern County Citrus Pest Control District (District) was formed pursuant to the Pest Control Law.

B. CTV

CTV is a virus transmitted by aphids, and infects most types of citrus. It exists in several strains and is found throughout the world, including California. Most strains cause trees growing on sour rootstock to die within months of infection. Approximately 10 to 20 percent of the citrus trees in the San Joaquin Valley are on sour rootstock. The remaining trees are grown on hybrid rootstock, and are more tolerant to the effects of the disease. Adverse consequences of CTV infection on tolerant trees include stem-pitting, chlorosis, loss of productivity, and reduced fruit size. Trees infected with CTV may serve as a source of infection for other healthy trees, and removal is the only effective virus eradication strategy currently available.

The People contend CTV-infected trees pose a serious risk of infecting neighboring citrus properties and threaten the health and welfare of the citrus industry in the Central Valley. Sun Pacific maintains CTV does not affect the growth, yield, nutritional...