The People of the State of California vs. Grouleff Aviation, Inc.

Complaint Information

LISA A. SMITTCAMP E-FILED

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, COUNTY OF FRESNO

Adam Kook, SBN: 285541 6/6/2018 11:52 AM

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

929 L, Street By: C. York, Deputy Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 600-3156

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Civil Case No: 18CECG02020 CALIFORNIA, D.A. Case No.: 2017-B-11635 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL V. PENALTIES, AND OTHER RELIEF.

GROULEFF AVIATION, INC. (a California Corporation),

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant. ) ) )

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through LISA A. SMITTCAMP, District Attorney of Fresno County, California, allege as follows:

1. LISA A. SMITTCAMP, District Attorney of Fresno County, California, acting in the public interest to protect and conserve the health and safety of the People of the State of California, brings this action in the name of The People of the State of California.

2. The District Attorney’s authority to bring this action derives from statute and common law, including, but not limited to, Food and Agricultural Code 54462, Health and Safety Code section 25182, and Business and Professions Code sections 17203, 17204 and 17206.

3. At all times herein mentioned; the Defendant transacted business in the County

of Fresno, and elsewhere throughout the State of California. The actions of Defendant, as

of Fresno, and elsewhere throughout the State of California. The actions of Defendant, as hereinafter alleged, are in violation of the laws and public policy of the State of California and are inimical to the rights and interests of the general public as consumers and competitors of Defendant. Unless enjoined and restrained by an order of this court, the Defendant will continue to retain the means to engage in the unlawful actions, practices, and courses of conduct set forth below.

hereinafter alleged, are in violation of the laws and public policy of the State of California and are inimical to the rights and interests of the general public as consumers and competitors of Defendant. Unless enjoined and restrained by an order of this court, the Defendant will continue to retain the means to engage in the unlawful actions, practices, and courses of conduct set forth below.

4. Plaintiff 1s informed and believes that the business known as GROULEFF AVIATION INC. is owned and operated by GREG GROULEFF.

5. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that GREG GROULEFF has authority to act on behalf of the business known as GROULEFF AVIATION INC. as its Designated Officer.

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant GREG GROULEEFF is located at 23600 W. Manning Avenue in San Joaquin, California, 93660, which 1s within the County of Fresno.

7. GROULEFF AVIATION INC. is an incorporated business owned and operated by GREG GROULEFF, with its principal place of business located at 23600 W. Manning Avenue in San Joaquin, California, 93660, which is engaged in the business of aerial application.

8. On June 12, 2015, inspectors from several agencies found that pesticides had been applied injuring fieldworkers working on nearby crops in violation of the Food and Agriculture Code and the California Code of Regulations. On June 12, 2015 GROULEFF AVIATION INC. conducted an aerial application of Wilbur-Ellis Dusting Sulfur to a tomato field operated by PRADO FARMS LLC located in Fresno County which drifted to a peach orchard southeast of the application. Workers reported experiencing symptoms of pesticide illness some of which received medical treatment.

9. On June 21, 2016, inspectors from several agencies found that pesticides had been applied killing bees in violation of the Food and Agriculture Code and the California Code of Regulations. On June 12, 2015 GROULEFF AVIATION INC. conducted an aerial

application of Beleaf 50 SG and Agri-Mek SC to an alfalfa field owned by JERRY

application of Beleaf 50 SG and Agri-Mek SC to an alfalfa field owned by JERRY for employees that handled organophosphate and carbamate pesticide products with Warning and Danger signal words.

for employees that handled organophosphate and carbamate pesticide products with Warning and Danger signal words.

g. Violating Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations, 6728(c)(1) by failing to maintain results from required cholinesterase testing for their employees who regularly handle signal word Danger or Warning organophosphates or carbamates pesticides for the past three

years.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Injunctive Relief (Business and Professions Code §§ 17203, 17204, and 17205.)

13. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 11, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein.

14. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that unless enjoined and restrained by order of this court, said Defendant will continue to engage in the aforementioned described unlawful conduct in derogation of the rights and interests of the general public as consumers and competitors of Defendant.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

1. On the First Cause of Action, that this Court assess a civil penalty of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) for each violation of the Business and Professions Code § 17200 according to proof, but in an amount not less than three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00).

2. On all causes of action, that this Court grant an order for a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendant and its agents, employees and representatives,them, from operating their business or engaging in activities incidental to their business in violation of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations, California Food and Agricultural Code and Business and Professions Code § 17203.

3. That Defendant be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s costs of investigation.

3. That Defendant be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s costs of investigation. 4. That Defendant be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s costs of suit. 3. That Defendant be ordered to pay attorneys’ fees incurred herein where

4. That Defendant be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s costs of suit. 3. That Defendant be ordered to pay attorneys’ fees incurred herein where

permitted by statute.

6. Such other and further relief as the nature of this case may require and as the

Court deems appropriate.

LISA A. SMITTCAMP

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

dam Kook Deputy District Attorney