This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Constitutional Law
Due Process Violation
California Constitution

Carlsbad Aquafarm, Inc. v. State of California, et al.

Published: Aug. 28, 1999 | Result Date: Apr. 16, 1999 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: N074951 Verdict –  $290,000

Judge

Michael M. Anello

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jeffrey S. Young
(Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Young)


Defendant

William A. Buess


Experts

Plaintiff

James Malcolm
(technical)

Defendant

Roberta J. Spoon
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff, Carlsbad Aquafarm, Inc., has grown mussels for human consumption since 1992 at its Aqua Hedionda Lagoon lease site in Carlsbad. The bacterial levels in the growing waters of the lagoon have required plaintiff to depurate the bacteria from its mussels prior to sale. In the depuration process, mussels are placed in tanks and held under sterilized running seawater for a minimum amount of time to insure theyÆve been cleansed. Since 1992, plaintiff depurated and marketed its mussels for human consumption both within California (intrastate) and interstate under a Certificate for Shellfish Handling and Marketing (Certificate) issued by the defendant California Department of Health Services (DHS). The plaintifffÆs certificate was consistently renewed by the DHS from 1993 through 1995. The DHS follows the guidelines of the federal governmentÆs National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP). In 1996, after a series of inspections, the DHS concluded that plaintiff was not in compliance with the NSSP guidelines and revoked/modified that portion of plaintiffÆs certificate that permitted plaintiff access to interstate markets. Defendant DHS then notified the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the
certificateÆs modification/revocation. The defendant gave no notice, warning, or opportunity to be heard to plaintiff, regarding its conclusion that plaintiff was not in compliance with the NSSP guidelines. When the FDA received no notice from the DHS that plaintiff was certified to ship shellfish interstate, the FDA did not list the plaintiff on the Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List (ICSSL) beginning in April of 1996. In November 1997, defendant DHS re-certified plaintiff for shipping shellfish interstate. The plaintiff claimed the actions of defendant caused it to suffer a loss of profits, resulting in economic damages to plaintiff.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand of $150,000. The defendant offered $10,000.

Damages

$324,000 in lost profits.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately one year and 10 months after the case was filed. A mediation was held before Dennis Fredrickson, resulting in no settlement. Defendant, State of California, has filed a Notice of Appeal.

Deliberation

four hours

Poll

12-0 (liability), 12-0 (causation), 9-3 (damages)

Length

six days


#96436

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390