Caltec AG v. Dep't of Pesticide Regulation
30 Cal. App. 5th 872
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Caltec sold four products (Microlife, Greenfeed 27-0-0, Terra Treat, Kelpak); DPR concluded three (Greenfeed, Terra Treat, Kelpak) were unregistered pesticides and imposed civil penalties totaling $784,000.
- DPR found Greenfeed and Terra Treat were spray adjuvants (wetting/spreading agents sold to aid pesticide application); Kelpak was found to be a liquid auxin concentrate sold as a plant growth regulator.
- Dept. of Food & Agriculture (DeptAg) had previously registered Greenfeed as a commercial fertilizer, Terra Treat as an auxiliary soil and plant substance, and Kelpak as an organic input material. Caltec argued those registrations precluded DPR regulation as pesticides.
- DPR relied on product labels, technical sheets, Caltec invoices (which described Kelpak as a “Liquid Auxin Concentrate”), and manufacturer materials; Caltec produced declarations and DeptAg/Washington organic registrations.
- The hearing officer and DPR Director concluded the three products met statutory definitions of pesticide; Caltec sought administrative mandamus in superior court, which denied relief; Caltec appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Caltec) | Defendant's Argument (DPR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Greenfeed is a pesticide (spray adjuvant) | Greenfeed is a fertilizer, not a pesticide | Greenfeed labeled/marketed as compatible with and usable as a carrier for pesticides; functions as a spreading/adhesive agent | Held: Substantial evidence supports Greenfeed is a spray adjuvant and thus a pesticide; DPR decision affirmed |
| Whether Terra Treat is a pesticide (spray adjuvant) | Terra Treat is a soil wetting agent/fertilizer registered with DeptAg as auxiliary soil and plant substance; not a pesticide | Terra Treat labeled and marketed to distribute fertilizers/pesticides and increase effectiveness of insecticides/herbicides; meets spray adjuvant elements | Held: Substantial evidence supports Terra Treat is a spray adjuvant; DeptAg registration does not preclude DPR action; DPR fine upheld |
| Whether Kelpak is a pesticide (plant growth regulator) | Kelpak is an organic seaweed fertilizer/input material (DeptAg registration); not a plant growth regulator | Kelpak described in invoices/marketing as a liquid auxin concentrate and as a bioregulator; auxin concentrates are plant growth regulators | Held: Substantial evidence Kelpak was sold as a liquid auxin concentrate and thus a plant growth regulator (pesticide); DPR penalty upheld |
| Whether DeptAg registrations bind DPR or preclude DPR enforcement | DeptAg registration as fertilizing materials means products are not pesticides and cannot be regulated by DPR | DPR may independently determine products are pesticides; DeptAg registrations lack judicial character and do not collaterally estop DPR | Held: DeptAg registrations are not binding; no collateral estoppel; DPR entitled to determine pesticide status independently |
| Proper interpretation of Regulation 6145(c) ("has no significant commercially valuable use") | Phrase modifies active ingredient; thus (c) applies if active ingredients lack non-pesticidal commercial use, ignoring product-level uses | DPR urged ingredient-focused reading to classify products by active-ingredient commercial use | Held: Court reads (c) as referring to the substance (product) — both elements (contains active ingredient AND the substance has no significant non‑pesticidal commercial use) must be met; DPR's narrower reading rejected |
| Procedural/evidentiary challenges | Caltec claimed hearing and evidence handling errors | DPR maintained procedures and evidentiary rulings proper; any errors were not prejudicial | Held: No prejudicial procedural or evidentiary error shown; substantial evidence supports findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 37 Cal.4th 921 (discusses when administrative decisions have collateral estoppel effect)
- Patterson Flying Service v. Department of Pesticide Regulation, 161 Cal.App.4th 411 (invalidity of "underground" agency interpretations not adopted through proper rulemaking)
- Montebello Rose Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 119 Cal.App.3d 1 (explains appellate review under substantial evidence standard)
- Allende v. Department of California Highway Patrol, 201 Cal.App.4th 1006 (deference weight to formal agency interpretations versus counsel arguments)