Voss

Sandrini Brothers v. Voss

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 874·7 Cal. App. 4th 1398·9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 763·92 Daily Journal DAR 9549·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6071
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 8, 1992F015549California2,357 words

Opinion

Opinion

Acting, J.

Procedural History

Pursuant to Food and Agriculture Code section 12648 the Department of Food and Agriculture and its director (collectively the Department) issued a notice of seizure and opportunity for hearing to Sandrini Brothers (Sandrini), a general partnership engaged in farming. The notice informed Sandrini the Department intended to seize certain grapes prior to a hearing because the Department believed the grapes had been treated with an “economic poison” and would be harvested before completion of the hearing process. The notice also advised Sandrini of its right to challenge the notice of seizure within 15 days and to a hearing within 5 days of a request. Sandrini requested a hearing, following which the hearing officer sustained the Department’s seizure.

Sandrini filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the superior court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 seeking a ruling that the seizure was wrongful and requesting an award of damages pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1095.

The trial court, relying upon Menefee & Son v. Department of Food & Agriculture (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 774 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 166 ], found section…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.