Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05053/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05053-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE HEMP’S FIRST HEMP BANK AND

DISTRIBUTION NETWORK and DAVID

CLANCY,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, and GREGORY

MINOR,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-05053 WHA

ORDER DENYING ALL

PROVISIONAL RELIEF

This order follows full briefing and oral argument on November 19, 2015.

This action is based entirely on the proposition that our plaintiff is a “warehouse” (for

marijuana) within the meaning of the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 822(c), and

therefore, in addition to being exempted from that Act, is somehow immune from being taxed

by the City of Oakland by reason of federal preemption. It doesn’t follow, however, that a

warehouse for federal purposes cannot be taxed under local law. No decision has ever so held.

It is of no moment that the City of Oakland has designated plaintiff as a “dispensary” for

purposes of the local tax. Plaintiff could certainly qualify as a “dispensary” under local law and

simultaneously as a “warehouse” under the federal law but, even if so, nothing in the Controlled

Substances Act prohibits a local tax on warehouses. Consequently, this entire action is

predicated on a false premise. All provisional relief is DENIED.

Case 3:15-cv-05053-WHA Document 16 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Out of an abundance of caution, this order merely assumes for the sake of argument that

plaintiff qualifies as a “warehouse” under federal law and does not (and need not) make any

such finding. 

The Court recommends that the parties stipulate to entry of judgment in favor of the City

of Oakland, rather than incurring the delay and expense of a motion to dismiss so the case can

go up on appeal expeditiously. Please advise the Court of your view within SEVEN CALENDAR

DAYS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-05053-WHA Document 16 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 2