Sonoma Residents Sue Marijuana Farm Over 'Skunk-like Stench'
The residents are seeking damages under RICO, the federal statute more often associated with organized crime prosecutions.
August 28, 2018 at 06:08 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Neighbors of a Sonoma County marijuana farm have sued the property operator and the bank that holds the note to the property for alleged damages under federal racketeering laws.
Nine residents living on Herrerias Way outside of Petaluma claim the marijuana grown by Green Earth Coffee on neighboring property generates an overpowering “skunk-like stench” that permeates their homes, hinders outdoor activities and compounds various neighbors' health problems. Some neighbors also cite the drone of a running generator.
The residents are seeking damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the federal statute more often associated with organized crime prosecutions. The suit names Green Earth Coffee, company owner Carlos Zambrano, property owner Flying Rooster and deed of trust holder Exchange Bank as defendants.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, also alleges nuisance claims as well as violations of California's unlawful business practice statute, the state's Drug Abatement Act and Sonoma County statutes.
“Defendants' operation of the Cannabis Enterprise through repeated acts of racketeering has directly and proximately injured plaintiffs' property,” the plaintiffs' lawyers, Kevin Block and Roman Block of Block & Block in Napa, wrote in the complaint. “The open and ongoing commission of federal crimes near plaintiffs' homes further diminishes their market value by causing potential buyers to fear associated criminal activity or by otherwise making the homes less attractive to potential buyers.”
Zambrano could not be reached for comment. Greg Jahn, Exchange Bank's executive vice president, did not immediately return a message Tuesday.
With cannabis still classified as an illegal drug by the federal government, neighbors of marijuana grows in legalized states have increasingly turned to federal racketeering statutes, with their triple damages, with mixed success.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit last year reinstated claims brought by landowners near a Colorado grow. A federal judge in Oregon last week dismissed RICO claims brought by grow-site neighbors, saying the plaintiffs had failed to show they had suffered financial harm.
At least three other RICO actions involving cannabis operations in California have been filed in recent years—one in Kern County, another in Berkeley and the third in Oakland. Plaintiffs in the suits in Kern County and Berkeley were cannabis operators who accused government officials of conspiring against them. In the Oakland case, a magistrate judge dismissed the claims against the owners of a rental space facility that had been converted into a marijuana operation.
Sonoma County, renowned for its wineries and vineyards, has been home to a sometimes contentious debate over whether and where cannabis cultivation should be allowed. The Herrerias Way neighbors allege that Green Earth Coffee has been growing marijuana without a county permit. A county spokeswoman confirmed that Green Earth Coffee was issued a five-day notice on May 29 to cease cannabis operations at the site near the Herrerias Way.
Green Earth Coffee has applied for a conditional use permit to grow marijuana on the site, but that permit has not been issued, the spokeswoman said.
The complaint is posted below:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
Read more:
➤➤ Get the latest cannabis lawyering, compliance and commentary straight to your inbox with Higher Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigator of the Week: A Long-Sought Win on Preemption for Monsanto at the Third Circuit
Litigators of the Week: Proskauer Scores a Defense Win for Last Defendant Standing in Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
Litigators of the Week: Covington Team Gets a Directed Verdict in First Trial Over Heavy Metals in Baby Food
Trending Stories
- 1Business Breakups: Why Business and Commercial Cases Are Well-Suited to Mediation
- 2Prosecutors Drop Charges Against Ex-Miami Commissioner and Attorney
- 3Pennsylvania Modernizes Trust Administration With New Directed Trust Statute
- 4Farella Hires Former AUSA, Jan. 6 Prosecutor
- 5Dougherty Jury Returns $2M Verdict
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250