In Carlsbad Aquafarm, Inc. v. Department of Health Services (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 809, plaintiff brought suit for damages to recover profits it would have received if the State Department of Health Services had not refused to complete a certain federal form that resulted in Aquafarm being removed from the "Interstate List" of approved shellfish operators. Aquafarm alleged the department violated its due process rights by failing to give notice and a hearing before deciding not to complete the necessary form. The jury found in Aquafarm's favor and awarded damages of $ 290,000. (Id. at pp. 812-815.) On appeal the Department contended the trial court erred in permitting the jury to award monetary damages. The appellate court began its analysis by reviewing federal law on the existence and scope of a "constitutional tort." (Aquafarm, supra, 83 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 815-816.) The concept of a constitutional damages claim was first recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents (1971) 403 U.S. 388 29 L. Ed. 2d 619, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (Bevins).) Reasoning that federal courts may use any available remedy to make good the invasion of a legal wrong, the Supreme Court held the victim of a Fourth Amendment violation by federal officers may bring suit in federal court against the officers for damages. (Id. at pp. 390-397.) The Aquafarm court noted that more recently, however, the United States Supreme Court was more reluctant to recognize a right to damages for alleged due process violations. (Aquafarm, supra, at p. 816.) California case law also presented a mixed picture on whether state constitutional provisions supported a constitutional tort action. (Aquafarm, supra, 83 Cal. App. 4th at p. 816.) "On reviewing these decisions, we believe the issue of whether to recognize a state constitutional tort is essentially one of policy and is dependent on numerous factors, including: (1) the voters' intent in permitting monetary damages for a violation of the particular constitutional provision; (2) the availability of another remedy; (3) the extent to which the provision is 'self-executing' and the judicial manageability of the tort; (4) the importance of the constitutional right." (Id. at p. 817.) pplying these factors, the court determined Aquafarm was not entitled to recover money damages. (Ibid.)