LAKE COUNTY >> After a lull in proceedings, the lawsuit against Lake County and its officials for alleged unconstitutional raids of medical marijuana patients’ homes may be about to pick up some steam in the coming months.
On Feb. 2 the federal court is expected to make a ruling on two motions to dismiss claims, which will determine the issues that will eventually be litigated.
“Right now we’re in a holding pattern but soon we’re going to be determining exactly what they (the defendants) did and how much responsibility they should take for what they did,” attorney Joseph Elford, representing the plaintiffs, said.
Previously, the court granted a preliminary injunction to stop Lake County and its officials from taking warrantless summary abatement actions on medical marijuana patients’ plants. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed tort claims totaling $621,000 in monetary damages.
The request for a preliminary injunction was made by eight named residents of the county after being allegedly raided in August by Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) officers accompanied by officials from the Lake County Community Development Department and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The defendants in the case include Lake County Sheriff Frank Rivero, Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) Interim Undersheriff Chris Macedo, Lt. Loren Freeman of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Lake County Community Development Director Richard Coel.
The most recent round of motions to dismiss claims come separately from Freeman and the county. While the county asks that the entirety of the plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed, Freeman’s motion seeks only four of their claims be thrown out.
The county’s motion argues the plaintiffs of the case have failed to allege sufficient standing and facts for many of its claims.
It reasons some of the defendants, including Rivero and Coel, are not responsible for any violation of rights as they didn’t physically participate in the raids. It also takes issue with the redundancy of naming individual defendants in their official capacities as well as naming the county.
The motion further argues the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the case with California’s tort claim system.
On the other hand, Freeman’s motion to dismiss claims gives some credit to the plaintiff’s case, stating “while some of the plaintiffs’ claims for relief state sufficient allegations — allowing them to go forward at this stage — these claims for relief indisputably fail to do so.”
The motion adds the plaintiffs’ second, fourth, fifth and sixth claims for relief should be dismissed as they are “simply and plainly not allowed under existing law.”
One of Freeman’s arguments states the plaintiffs’ claims are appropriately evaluated under the Fourth Amendment but not the Fourteenth. His second argument seeks to prove the plaintiffs’ claim for deprivation of property without advance notice and warrantless searches and seizures is unprecedented in the state’s courts.
If Judge Thelton Henderson denies any of the county’s motion to dismiss, the case will continue to move forward. Elford said he wouldn’t be surprised if the case ended up in trial.
A case management conference is scheduled for March 2. Discovery will follow and the depositions. or pretrial testimony, of the plaintiffs and defendants are likely to be of interest.
Attorney John Whitefleet, representing the county and its officials, declined to provide comment on the case.
