On 06/06/2018 a Contract - Business case was filed by The People of the State of California against Grouleff Aviation, Inc in the jurisdiction of Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California.
*******2020
06/06/2018
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Fresno County Superior Courts
Bf Sisk Courthouse
Fresno, California
Gaab, Kimberly
The People of the State of California
Grouleff Aviation, Inc.
Stipulated Judgment Entered; Judicial Officer: Gaab, Kimberly; Judgment Type: Stipulated Judgment Entered; Party Names: The People of the State of California; Grouleff Aviation, Inc.; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; The People of the State of California; Awarded Against:; Grouleff Aviation, Inc.
Notice Filed; Comment: Assignment of Judge for all Purposes
Proposed Order; Comment: **Order signed and forwarded to the clerks office for further processing on 06.08.18 MMD** Forwarded on 6/7/18 to Dept: 503 Order for: Final Judgment and Injunction
Proposed Order; Comment: for Entry of Final Judgment
Complaint
Civil Case Cover Sheet
Disposition: Judgment- Stipulated Judgment Entered; Judicial Officer: Gaab, Kimberly; Judgment Type: Stipulated Judgment Entered; Party Names: The People of the State of California; Grouleff Aviation, Inc.; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; The People of the State of California; Awarded Against:; Grouleff Aviation, Inc.
Government Exemption Claimed
Notice Filed- Notice Filed; Comment: Assignment of Judge for all Purposes
Chambers Work- Pre- Judicial Officer: Gaab, Kimberly; Hearing Time: 5:30 PM; Result: Chambers Work - Order Submitted for Consideration
Order Received for Signature- Proposed Order; Comment: **Order signed and forwarded to the clerks office for further processing on 06.08.18 MMD** Forwarded on 6/7/18 to Dept: 503 Order for: Final Judgment and Injunction
Stipulation Filed- Proposed Order; Comment: for Entry of Final Judgment
Civil Complaint filed- Complaint
Civil case cover sheet- Civil Case Cover Sheet
Financial info for The People of the State of California: Government Exemption Claimed $435.00
Financial info for The People of the State of California: Transaction Assessment $435.00
Financial: The People of the State of California; Total Financial Assessment $435.00; Total Payments and Credits $435.00
LISA A. SMITTCAMP E-FILED
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, COUNTY OF FRESNO
Adam Kook, SBN: 285541 6/6/2018 11:52 AM
929 L, Street By: C. York, Deputy Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 600-3156
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.
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.
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
dam Kook Deputy District Attorney