Issues and Cases

A farmer’s due process rights are plowed under by the feds

Duarte Nursery v. Corps of Engineers, Members of the Board of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board


Contact: Anthony L. Francois

Status: On October 23, 2015, Duarte Nursery filed a motion for summary judgment against the Army Corps of Engineers, presenting undisputed facts that show that the farming company is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the government deprived it of property without a hearing. Hearing on dispositive motions was held on November 20, 2015. On June 10, 2016, The court ruled that the company violated the Clean Water Act by plowing its property, even though the Act exempts normal farming practices. PLF has appealed the judge’s dismissal of Duarte Nursery’s First Amendment retaliation claim to the Ninth Circuit, and asked for a stay of the remaining trial court proceedings pending that appeal.
 
Summary:
PLF attorneys represent Duarte Nursery and John Duarte in a lawsuit over the denial of due process rights by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Duarte NurseryOn February 25, 2013, the Corps sent a cease and desist letter to Duarte, ordering suspension of farming operations on a parcel of land in Tehama County, California, based on alleged violations of the Clean Water Act during farming operations. The Corps did not notify Duarte of the allegations in the letter prior to issuing the letter, or provide Duarte any opportunity to comment on the allegations or the requirements of the letter prior to issuing it.

On April 18, 2013, the Corps sent a follow-up letter to Duarte’s counsel, providing an erroneous factual basis for the cease and desist letter, and then asking Duarte for several items of information, which the Corps should have inquired into and given Duarte an opportunity to comment on prior to issuing the February 25, 2013, letter.

On April 23, 2013, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a notice of violation, evidently based on the same factual allegations, and also without prior notice or an opportunity to comment afforded to Duarte. The notice of violation appears to be based largely, if not entirely, on receipt of the Corps’ February 25 letter.

The lawsuit argues that Duarte’s right to due process has been violated by these communications and commands, because they were issued with prior notice of alleged illegal activity, and with no opportunity to comment.

 

PLF Testimonial

"Most people wouldn't stick it out, and since PLF is litigating for principle, we have to thank PLF for doing what they do."
Trevor Burrus, Research Fellow at CATO Institute

Connect with Us       Donate to PLF


PLF Client Highlight

"PLF allowed me to keep operating my business, even in the midst of a crisis. My business means the world to me and my family - PLF saved it for us. Thank you."
R.J. Bruner, Wildcat Moving Co.

Connect with Us       Donate to PLF


PLF Client Highlight

"A 20 year battle is over, thanks to Pacific Legal Foundation.  My father would be proud. Thank you PLF for your support."
Coy Jr. and Linda Koontz

Connect with Us       Donate to PLF


What Your Support Means

Donate to PLF

 

A PLF Victory for Freedom

Supreme Court Victories


PLF Donor Highlight

"For PLF, it's not a job - it's a passion. You can feel very good about how well your money is used in support of the programs they have."
Dr. Robert S. Pepper

Our History       Join The Fight

PLF Testimonial

"Individuals for whom a major case is a one shot deal are far more aggrieved. Most individuals cannot afford to do anything with that grievance, and that's where organizations like PLF come in."

Professor Steven Eagle, George Mason School of Law

Our History       Join The Fight

63%
of PLF donations come from individuals

 

Search our case database
Search the case database for access to hundreds of open and closed cases.