###

United State Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman on Friday dismissed a federal class action lawsuit brought by the nonprofit Institute for Justice on behalf of a group of Southern Humboldt property owners who alleged that the county’s cannabis code enforcement practices were illegal.

Specifically, the claim argued that the county’s administrative processes to abate illegal weed grows violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to due process; levied exorbitant and unjustified fines and fees; and deprived plaintiffs of their alleged constitutional right to have a jury present at an administrative hearing.

The lawsuit, which was filed last year, named the County of Humboldt as a defendant along with all five county supervisors by name and county Planning Director John Ford, in their professional capacities.

Having read Judge Illman’s 52-page decision (a link to which you can find below), I think it’s fair to say he effectively laughed this case out of court. His ruling repeatedly and comprehensively rebukes the arguments put forward by plaintiffs’ attorneys, describing their reasoning variously as “implausible,” “baseless,” “unreasonable,” “ineffectual” and riddled with “gross mischaracterizations.”

Here’s just one example of his upbraiding:

Despite the [first amended complaint’s] length, overlooking its irrelevant content, and its conclusory and implausible assertions – and in light of the materials of which the court is taking judicial notice – it becomes clear … that the underlying facts do not, and simply can not, entitle these Plaintiffs to any relief against these Defendants.

Here’s another:

Spanning 70 pages, with more than 600 numbered paragraphs, the [complaint] is overwhelmingly dominated by legal arguments couched as factual allegations, unreasonable inferences, unwarranted deductions, conclusory assertions, unjustified labels, and hyperbole. As to the relatively small number of paragraphs that do contain actual allegations of fact, the vast majority of that content is either irrelevant or simply implausible.

He takes the plaintiffs’ allegations one by one. Regarding a claim that they had been subjected to “excessive fines and fees,” Judge Illman proceeds to describe each one’s individual circumstances before noting, “No party has actually paid a fine.”

Regarding a claim that the county routinely denies land-use permits to landowners with outstanding abatement orders, Judge Illman writes, “Plaintiffs concede that they have not actually received any such final decisions by having had any such land-use permit applications rejected.”

Regarding the demand for a jury trial he writes, “[T]here is no right to a jury trial in the sort of administrative hearing at issue here – something which Plaintiffs appear to vaguely concede.”

Furthermore, he observes, the county’s code enforcement regulatory framework “expressly provides for full-fledged judicial review after the conclusion of the administrative phase of the proceedings.”

The allegation that the plaintiffs have been denied due process, meanwhile, gets dismissed for failure to state a claim. Attorneys for the plaintiffs listed ten examples of the county’s alleged failure to provide adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard, but Judge Illman concludes, “all either implausible, irrelevant, conclusory, or are based on unreasonable inferences or unwarranted deductions.”

Ultimately he dismissed every last claim with prejudice, meaning the suit cannot simply be refiled in U.S. District Court’s Northern District of California, where it was heard.

But in a press release published on Redheaded Blackbelt, attorneys with the Institute for Justice vow to appeal the decision to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The press release says the judge “accepted as true many of the county’s factually incorrect statements,” and attorney Jared McClain adds, “We disagree with the court’s decision and will continue to fight for justice on appeal, ensuring that the rights of Humboldt County property owners are protected.”

In an emailed statement, Humboldt County Public Information Specialist Cati Gallardo said, “While we were disappointed that a small number of residents chose this route in an attempt to resolve their existing violations, we are pleased by the court’s decision. The United States Magistrate Judge is direct in the rationale for ruling on each count, and we appreciate the clarity provided by the court. We look forward to resuming collaboration with property owners to resolve these and other open cannabis-related cases.”

###

DOCUMENT: Order Re: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint