Santa Barbara County Coalition for Responsible Cannabis, et al. v. Ceres Farms, LLC, et al

Case Number

23CV03885

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 09/10/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Notice Plan

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiffs Santa Barbara County Coalition for Responsible Cannabis, William Hahn, Danielle Dall’Armi, and   Chonnie Bliss Jacobson: Robert A. Curtis, Aaron L. Ardnt, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP

For Defendant Valley Crest Farms, LLC: Patrick D. Toole, John   P. Kinsey, Ethan E. Mora, Wanger Jones Helsley PC

For Defendants Ceres Farm LLC, Case Van Wingerden, Alex Van Wingerden, and the Van Wingerden Family Trust: Beth A. Collins, Amy M. Steinfeld, Marcus S. Bird, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP

                       

RULING

For all reasons discussed herein, Plaintiffs’ motion to approve notice plan is granted as follows:

1. Simpluris Inc. is appointed as Class Action Administrator upon the terms set forth in the declaration of Shelby Alvey.
2. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall instruct Simpluris, Inc. to conduct a targeted, skip trace search to identify all owner-occupied properties within a one-mile radius of 5980 Casitas Pass Road, Carpinteria. Simpluris shall then file and serve a declaration with updated information regarding the results of that search.
3. Plaintiff’s Notice of Class Action Certification is approved.
4. Once Simpluris conducts its revised skip trace search and provides that information to the Court and defense counsel, the Notices of Class Action Certification may be mailed, by Simpluris via first-class mail, to all residential properties within a one-mile radius of Valley Crest Farms cannabis operation located at 5980 Casitas Pass Road, Carpinteria.
5. If, at any time after the initial mailing of the Notices of Class Action Certification, class counsel or defense counsel discover new information which causes either of them to believe that the potential class member list is inaccurate, in any material respect, they may move the Court for an order to correct the material inaccuracy.
6. Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer and agree, prior to hearing on this matter, to discuss the scheduling of dates, including the date for the supplemental declaration from Simpluris, the date for mailing the notices, and an appropriate opt-out date for potential class members. If the parties agree they will file a stipulation of such dates; if they cannot agree the Court will set the dates at the hearing.

Background

This action commenced on September 7, 2023, by the filing of the class action complaint by Plaintiffs Santa Barbara County Coalition for Responsible Cannabis (the “Coalition”), William Hahn, Danielle Dall’Armi, and Chonnie Bliss Jacobson against Defendants Ceres Farm LLC, Case Van Wingerden, Alex Van Wingerden, Valley Crest Farms LLC (“Valley Crest”) and the Van Wingerden Family Trust for: (1) Private Nuisance, (2) Public Nuisance, (3) Violation of Business & Professions Code, section 17200, and (4) Trespass.

As alleged in the complaint:

Hahn and Dall’Armi are residents of Santa Barbara County and reside at 5950 Casitas Pass Rd, Carpinteria. (Compl., ¶ 8.) Jacobson resides at 6217 Casitas Pass Rd., Carpinteria. (Compl., ¶ 9.) The Coalition is a California nonprofit that was formed in Santa Barbara and is a county-wide organization “that has recognized the need for a collective voice to educate the public and government leaders, protect our environment, and maintain our community legacy.” (Compl., ¶ 10.)

Ceres Farms is an LLC with its principal place of business located at 6030 Casita Pass Rd., Carpinteria. (Compl., ¶ 12.) Ceres Farm holds 17 provisional state cannabis licenses and is actively cultivating cannabis in vented greenhouses located at 6030 Casitas Pass Rd. (Ibid.)

Valley Crest is an LLC with its principal place of business located at 5980 Casitas Pass Rd., Carpinteria. (Compl., ¶ 13.) Valley Crest holds 39 provisional state cannabis licenses and is actively cultivating cannabis in vented greenhouses located at 5980 Casitas Pass Rd. (Ibid.)

The remaining Defendants are all alleged to be owners of the land where the cannabis operation is taking place or that they controlled either Ceres Farm or Valley Crest. (Compl., ¶¶ 14, 15, 16.)

The complaint alleges that the cannabis operations create noxious odors which can, and should, be controlled by carbon filtration systems, but that the Defendants instead utilize ineffective vapor-phase odor control technology that contains chemicals that are equally malodorous and potentially hazardous to human health.

On November 8, 2023, Ceres Farm and the Wingerden Defendants answered the complaint with a general denial and 44 affirmative defenses.

On November 13, 2023, Valley Crest answered the complaint with a general denial and 33 affirmative defenses.

On October 18, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement with Ceres Farms and the Wingerden Defendants, purporting to settle the entire action as between those Defendants and Plaintiffs.

On March 5, 2025, a hearing was had on Plaintiffs’ motion for class action certification. The Court’s ruling included the following:

“1. Plaintiffs’ Class is certified as to all claims for relief as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint, defined as follows:

“a. All owner-occupiers of real property located within one mile of Valley Crest’s cannabis operations who purchased their property prior to January 19, 2016 (the ‘Class’).

“b. Plaintiffs William Hahn, Danielle Dall’Armi, and Chonnie Bliss Jacobson are certified and appointed as the representatives of the Class.

“c. Robert A. Curtis of the law firm Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP is appointed as class counsel.

“d. Robert A. Curtis shall prepare the “Notice to the Class” and provide a copy of said Notice to counsel for Valley Crest for approval. Any disagreement that the parties are unable to work out can be brought to the Court at a Notice Approval Hearing set by the attorneys. Briefs no longer than 5 pages can be submitted 5 days prior to the Notice Approval Hearing.”

Plaintiffs now move for approval of the Notice Plan. Valley Crest objects to the Notice Plan and submits its own.

Analysis

California Rules of Court, rule 3.766 provides:

“(a) Party to provide notice

If the class is certified, the Court may require either party to notify the class of the action in the manner specified by the Court.

“(b) Statement regarding class notice

The class proponent must submit a statement regarding class notice and a proposed notice to class members. The statement must include the following items:

“(1) Whether notice is necessary;

“(2) Whether class members may exclude themselves from the action;

“(3) The time and manner in which notice should be given;

“(4) A proposal for which parties should bear the costs of notice; and,

“(5) If cost shifting or sharing is proposed under subdivision (4), an estimate of the cost involved in giving notice.

“(c) Order

Upon certification of a class, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Court must make an order determining:

“(1) Whether notice to class members is necessary;

“(2) Whether class members may exclude themselves from the action;

“(3) The time and manner of notice;

“(4) The content of the notice; and

“(5) The parties responsible for the cost of notice.

“(d) Content of class notice

The content of the class notice is subject to Court approval. If class members are to be given the right to request exclusion from the class, the notice must include the following:

“(1) A brief explanation of the case, including the basic contentions or denials of the parties;

“(2) A statement that the Court will exclude the member from the class if the member so requests by a specified date;

“(3) A procedure for the member to follow in requesting exclusion from the class;

“(4) A statement that the judgment, whether favorable or not, will bind all members who do not request exclusion; and

“(5) A statement that any member who does not request exclusion may, if the member so desires, enter an appearance through counsel.

“(e) Manner of giving notice

In determining the manner of the notice, the Court must consider:

“(1) The interests of the class;

“(2) The type of relief requested;

“(3) The stake of the individual class members;

“(4) The cost of notifying class members;

“(5) The resources of the parties;

“(6) The possible prejudice to class members who do not receive notice; and

“(7) The res judicata effect on class members.

“(f) Court may order means of notice

If personal notification is unreasonably expensive or the stake of individual class members is insubstantial, or if it appears that all members of the class cannot be notified personally, the Court may order a means of notice reasonably calculated to apprise the class members of the pendency of the action--for example, publication in a newspaper or magazine; broadcasting on television, radio, or the Internet; or posting or distribution through a trade or professional association, union, or public interest group.”

By way of its March 5, 2025, ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for Class Action Certification, the Court made findings consistent with California Rules of Court, rule 3.766, and instructed Plaintiffs’ counsel to prepare a Notice to the Class.

“The Court’s duty to protect the rights of all parties is particularly pronounced once a class has been certified and notified of a potential class settlement, because class members must decide whether or not to opt out. [Citation.] “ ‘The notice is a matter of extreme importance, committed to the discretion of the Court, not the ‘ “whim of litigants.” ’ ” [Citation.] The Court must “ ‘assure that the notice be ‘ “neutral and objective in tone, neither promoting nor discouraging the assertion of claims.” ’ [Citation.] [¶] . . . ‘ “It is essential that the class members’ decision to participate or to withdraw be made on the basis of independent analysis of [their] own self-interest. It is the responsibility of the Court as a neutral arbiter, and of the attorneys in their adversary capacity, to insure this type of free and unfettered decision. [¶] The mechanism selected for accomplishing this is the class notice, which is designed to present the relevant facts in an unbiased format.’ ” [Citation.] Thus, once a notice is approved, a party “cannot send out its own competing and argumentative notice and invitation to the class members to opt out. [Citation.] Such conduct defeats the whole point of the Court’s holding a hearing to approve the notice to the class.’ ” [Citation.] It amounts to “ ‘an end run around the Court’s supervisory powers.’ ” [Citation.]” (Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1454–1455.)

Plaintiffs’ proposed Notice of Class Action Certification includes, among other provisions, the following:

“IF YOU HAVE OWNED AND OCCUPIED A HOME LOCATED WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE VALLEY CREST CANNABIS FARM SINCE JANUARY 19, 2016, A RECENTLY COURT-CERTIFIED CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.”

“A Court has authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. You are not being sued. Please read this Notice carefully and completely.”

“Owner-occupiers of residential properties located within one-mile of Valley crest Farms’ cannabis operation in Carpinteria, California are suing the farm because they believe that the smell of marijuana and/or the vapor allegedly emanating from the facility lowers their property values and makes living nearby unpleasant. A judge’s ruling on March 5, 2025, allows these neighbors to join together in a class-action lawsuit.”

“To be included in this class, you must have owned and occupied your residence since January 19, 2016.”

“Valley Crest denies that it did anything wrong, and the Court has not decided who is right.”

The notice then properly explains what happens if a potential class member does nothing, or actively opts out of the action. Basic information is given, including why the Notice was issued, what the lawsuit is about, what a class action means, that the Court has not decided who is right, that there is no money available currently and there may never be any, defines the class again, and discusses what happens if the potential class member does nothing or opts-out. Instructions for opting-out of the action are clear and straight-forward.

The proposed Notice is neutral and objective in tone, neither promoting nor discouraging the assertion of claims.

The motion is supported by the declaration of Simpluris project manager Shelby Alvey. Alvey declares:

“Simpluris is a National full-service class action notice and claims administrator.” (Alvey Decl., ¶ 2.)

“Simpluris will be charged with, among other responsibilities:

“(a) disseminating direct notice by mail to all class members;

“(b) establishing and maintaining a settlement post office box;

“(c) establishing and maintaining a settlement toll-free telephone number that will be available 24 hours a day and offer answers to frequently asked questions (‘FAQs’);

“(d) developing and maintaining a settlement interactive website that will host relevant Court documents;

“(e) processing incoming exclusions and related class correspondence;” (Alvey Decl., ¶ 4.)

“Simpluris has conducted a targeted, skip trace search to identify all owner-occupied properties within a 1-mile radius of 6030 Casitas Pass Road, Carpinteria, California.” (Alvey Decl., ¶ 5, italics added.)

“This search has identified 260 mailing addresses. Of the 260 addresses, 230 contain owner information.” (Alvey Decl., ¶ 6.)

“Because some of the properties identified may not be owner-occupied this search likely resulted in overbroad results. However, the results are still appropriate for Notice purposes.” (Alvey Decl., ¶ 7.)

“Prior to mailing direct notice, Simpluris will compare class member address against the National Change of Address Database (‘NCOA’) maintained by the U.S. Postal Service (‘USPS’). The NCOA contains changes of address filed with the USPS. Class member addresses will be updated as appropriate based on NCOA results.” (Alvey Decl., ¶ 8.)

“If direct notice is returned without a forwarding address Simpluris will perform a public records search, commonly called a ‘skip trace,’ utilizing available class member information to locate a current address. Simpluris will re-mail direct notice to the newly-located address or a forwarding address, if provided by the USPS.” (Alvey Decl., ¶ 9.)

“Simpluris will develop, host, administer, and maintain the Settlement Website, containing the notice and other important case documents.” (Alvey Decl., ¶ 10.)

[Note: Valley Crest objects to the declaration of Shelby Alvey, and each statement therein, on multiple grounds. The objections are over-ruled. The declaration does not technically contain “evidence.” Rather it contains suggestions and a plan for administering the Class Notices.]

Valley Crest objects to the proposed Notice Plan, under three main headings, arguing:

“1. Plaintiffs’ mailing list used the wrong address;

“2. Plaintiffs propose to send notice to dozens of third parties who are not, and cannot be potential class members based on the Court approved class definition; and

“3. [The Notice] [d]iscloses personal and identifying information without providing private homeowners an opportunity to object to such disclosure.” (Obj., p. 1, ll. 4-10.)

Valley Crest proposes its own Notice Plan that first involves mailing a “Belaire-West Notice” to appropriately identified properties.

Plaintiff’s argument regarding Plaintiffs’ Notice containing the incorrect address has merit. Valley Crest argues: “Defendant’s cannabis operation is located at 5980 Casitas Pass Road. Plaintiffs’ Notice Plan describes their intent to mail direct notices to over 200 addresses allegedly located within a 1-mile radius of 6030 Casitas Pass Road.” (Obj., p. 2, ll. 4-6.)

The Notice itself, at paragraph 6, correctly lists Valley Crest’s address as 5980 Casitas Pass Road, Carpinteria. However, according to Shelby Alvey, quoted above, a skip trace was performed to identify all owner-occupied properties within a 1-mile radius of 6030 Casitas Pass Road. The confusion is likely the result of Ceres Farms being a Defendant as well. While Plaintiffs’ complaint does, in fact, list 6030 Casitas Pass Road as a cannabis cultivation location, it does so with respect to Ceres Farms (Compl., ¶ 12). The complaint and Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, identify Valley Crest’s relevant address as 5980 Casitas Pass Road.

The incorrect address causes some issues. However, those issues can be resolved. Plaintiffs will be ordered to have Simpluris conduct a targeted, skip trace search to identify all owner-occupied properties within a one-mile radius of 5980 Casitas Pass Road, and to use that information to identify potential class members.

Valley Crest’s next argument is essentially that Plaintiffs’ proposed Notice fails because it proposes no list of potential members. The argument fails. The Notice does, specifically, propose a list of potential members. Those members are, as has been stated previously, as well as in the Notice itself: “Owner-occupiers of residential properties located within one-mile of Valley crest Farms’ cannabis operation in Carpinteria” that “have owned and occupied [their] residence since January 19, 2016.” At this stage, it cannot be any more specific than that. The discovery process will have the effect of narrowing down the class to actual members.

Valley Crest’s brief assertion that the possibility of non-class member third-parties receiving the Notice amounts to unethical solicitation, is unsupported by any legal authority or cogent argument. The Notices, even if they do unintentionally get sent to non-class members is not a solicitation. The individuals receiving the Notices are either class members, or they are not.

Valley Crest’s final argument is that Plaintiffs’ plan threatens to violate Carpinteria community members’ privacy rights, and that a “Belaire-West Notice” should be mailed to potential class members prior to the Notice of Class Action.

A Belaire-West Notice (Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554 (Belaire-West)) is not required, or even reasonable, in the present case. In Belaire-West, the Court addressed an “individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” (Id. at p. 558.) Sending the Notice to a specific address within a one-mile radius of Valley Crest’s operation does not involve a serious invasion of privacy. Additionally, the Notice itself gives potential class-members the right to opt out of the action and thereby decline to disclose any information that is protected by a right to privacy.

Other than the incorrect address, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ proposed Notice, and Notice Plan, conforms to California Rules of Court, rule 3.766.