Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/marijuana-dispensary-regulations-175
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 00:28:51
Document Index: 457504863

Matched Legal Cases: ['§11007', '§26200', '§ 7', '§ 38771', 'ART 35', '§ 26012', '§ 26012', '§26012', '§ 26012', '§26012', '§26012', '§26012']

What is the legality of marijuana dispensaries?
Regulation of Facilities Selling and Distributing Marijuana
“State law permitting medicinal marijuana use and distribution does not preempt ‘the authority of California cities and counties, under their traditional land use and police powers, to allow, restrict, limit, or entirely exclude facilities that distribute medical marijuana, and to enforce such policies by nuisance actions.’” (Urgent Care Medical Services v. City of Pasadena (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1086, 1092 citing City of Vallejo v. NCORP4, Inc. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1078, 1081-1082.)
Marijuana or cannabis are the same and are both controlled substances. Health and Safety Code § §11007, 11032 and 11054(d)(13). Where a city's municipal code does not list marijuana dispensaries as permitted use and the city states that nonpermitted uses are nuisances, the operation of marijuana dispensaries in that city is a nuisance per se. (See, Urgent Care Medical Services v. City of Pasadena (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1086.)
Whether to prohibit or to license marijuana sales and operations in a particular city is up to that city. Business and Professions Code §26200(a)(l). A city is constitutionally authorized to “make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7. It may by legislative declaration state what activities or conditions may constitute a nuisance. Gov. Code, § 38771. Thus, a city council may, by ordinance, declare what it deems to constitute a public nuisance. (City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1086.) An act or condition legislatively declared to be a public nuisance is a nuisance per se against which an injunction may issue without any proof of irreparable injury. (Id at 1086-1087.)
Regulation Related to the CUA and MMPA
“We have consistently maintained that the CUA and the MMP are but incremental steps toward freer access to medical marijuana, and the scope of these statutes is limited and circumscribed.” (City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 729, 738.) ”They merely declare that the conduct they describe cannot lead to arrest or conviction, or be abated as a nuisance, as violations of enumerated provisions of the Health and Safety Code.” (Id.) ”Nothing in the CUA or the MMP expressly or impliedly limits the inherent authority of a local jurisdiction, by its own ordinances, to regulate the use of its land, including the authority to provide that facilities for the distribution of medical marijuana will not be permitted to operate within its borders.” (Id.) We must therefore reject defendants' preemption argument, and must affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.” (City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 729, 738.)
Useful Rulings on Marijuana – Dispensary Regulations
CAUGHEY VS. URIAS
1. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs Elizabeth Caughey and El Toro Plaza LP’s application for a preliminary injunction and orders concerning Suite 216 at 23331 El Toro Road, Lake Forest, California is Granted in part and Denied in part. The defendants and each of them, including all employees, agents, servants, abiders, abettors, volunteers, members, or others acting on the...
..and their employees and agents from storing, keeping, selling, serving and/or giving away marijuana and marijuana products at Suite 216, 23331 El Toro Drive, Lake Forest, CA. However, ETP’s request that it be allowed to prevent any and all individuals with the exception of Defendant Aaron Goldberg from entering the suite is Denied. This application is Granted pursuant to Health and Safety Code §§...
Patrick R. Fourmy v. City of Santa Barbara
Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Writ of Mandate Santa Barbara County Superior Court Department 5 Judge Colleen K. Sterne Tentative Ruling November 28, 2011 Case: Patrick R. Fourmy v. City of Santa Barbara Case No. 1380854 Matter: Petition for Writ of Mandate Tentative Ruling: The court denies petitioner Patrick R. Fourmy’s petition for writ of mandate challenging...
..pment Staff Hearing Officer denied the application for a permit on December 15, 2010. The City Planning Commission denied Fourmy’s appeal on February 3, 2010. The City Council denied the appeal on May 10, 2011. Fourmy generally alleges that the City abused its discretion, its decision is not supported by the findings or the evidence, and the decision deprives him of his rights under the Fifth and...
GRIZZLY GREEN INC VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
GRIZZLY GREEN, INC., Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant Case No.: BC666261 [TENTATIVE] ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant County of Los Angeles’ demurrer to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Background On June 23, 2017, Plaintiff Grizzly Green Inc....
..lief. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s causes of action fail as these causes of action present non-justiciable claims. Defendant argues Plaintiff cites to no County law from which it seeks relief to establish the existence of a controversy. Defendant contends Plaintiff compounds this issue by alleging very few facts. Defendant asserts Plaintiff has not and cannot establish that it suffered inj...
City of Huntington Beach v Ishihara
DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED ORDER ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The Defendants’ Objections to the Plaintiff’s Proposed Order granting the plaintiff’s application for preliminary injunction are SUSTAINED. The objected to language was not intended to be included in the order of this court in granting the plaintiff’s application for preliminary injunction. The def...
..nted Plaintiffs preliminary injunction prohibiting “Leasing, renting, allowing, or in any way granting authority to make use of the premises at 8162 Talbert Avenue, Units 101 and 104 in Huntington Beach, or in any other location in HB to distribute marijuana.’ The proposed order also incorrectly provides as follows: B. Operating, conducting, inhabiting, occupying, investing in, possessing any fina...
Ehnobotanica v. County of San Luis Obispo
Petitioner Ethnobotanica (“Petitioner”) challenges the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors’ (“Board”) denial of a Minor Use Permit to operate a medical marijuana dispensary. Petitioner currently meets its clients’ needs as a mobile dispensary (i.e., by delivery) but seeks to establish a brick and mortar dispensary within an existing 2,636 square-foot commercial/office suite (the “Project”)...
..s for medical marijuana dispensaries. The purpose of the section “is to set standards for this use [i.e., medical marijuana dispensaries] consistent with neighborhood concerns.” (LUO 22.30.225(A).) Section 22.30.225 also requires an applicant to obtain a Minor Use Permit to establish a medical marijuana dispensary. (LUO 22.30.225(B).) LUO section 22.62.050 governs the application and review proce...
City of San Diego vs Top Flight Corvette Inc
The Motion (ROA # 56) of Plaintiff City of San Diego ("Plaintiff" or "City") for summary judgment of its Complaint for violations of the City Municipal Code against Defendants TOP FLIGHT CORVETTE, INC., LAWTON M. FERREIRA and DONNA M. FERREIRA ("Defendants"), pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 437c(a), 437(c) and 437c(p)(1), on the grounds that there is no defense to the Compl...
..estraining Defendants from maintaining or operating an establishment for the sale or distribution of marijuana. See SDMC 12.0202 and 121.0311, and Code Civ. Proc. 526. The party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850. If...
Recent Rulings on Marijuana – Dispensary Regulations
Demurrer / Motion To Strike (2)
Irma Asberry (2)
Joel R. Wohlfeil (3)
Marc Marmaro (3)
San Diego County, CA (6)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL., ET AL. V. COACHELLA VALLEY
On balance, the City’s need for discovery regarding transactions where Coachella accepted money in exchange for marijuana and Coachella’s efforts to sell, distribute, or provide marijuana outweigh the privacy interests of Coachella and any third-party individuals, particularly because the information at issue is crucial to the City’s case.
Judge Mark H. Pierce
The defendant also argues that the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Religious Freedom Act provide him some sort of immunity which allows him to distribute marijuana without a license or otherwise prevents the injunction requested. The defendant has presented no authority to support these contentions. The defendant has provided no authority to support application of the Declaration or the Act to the facts before this court.
Judge James DI CESARE
WILLIE FRANK SENN VS STEVEN DANG
-the company that was to license the FlavRx IP from LC Brands CA Inc. and distribute products using the FlavRx IP. Next, SENN, DANG, and ROLFSEN began circulating the Final Business Plan to potential investors. 48.
CITY OF RIVERSIDE VS WEEDMART 35 CAP
Under the Receivership Order, the Receiver was “To render interim accountings and reports” and “To prepare and distribute periodic reports directly to all parties and their legal counsel.” Counsel (identified as initials NAF—presumably Nicholas Firetag at a rate of $405) prepared the monthly reports, communicated with the City, met with the property manager, etc. There is no reason for Counsel to do this at counsel’s rate.
Judge Irma Asberry
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS COSMIC MIND ET AL
Under the terms of the Stipulation, Defendants agreed to: (1) “not cultivate, process, distribute, deliver, or give away marijuana to any person or any location in the City of Los Angeles”; (2) not deliver any medical marijuana to any location in the City of Los Angeles”; (3) “not facilitate, aid, or abet the delivery of any medical marijuana to any location in the City of Los Angeles”; and (4) “not maintain, operate, conduct, or permit any unfair or unlawful business act or practice involving medical marijuana
Judge David S. Cunningham
MEDICAL MARIJUANA INC VS. CANNLABS INC
The article discusses Plaintiff's purported use of a multi-level marketing scheme to distribute and market its hemp oil products. All of these subjects are matters of public interest within the meaning of section 425.16. There is much public concern and discussion regarding tainted medicines in general. As a result, Defendants have satisfied their initial burden of demonstrating that section 425.16 applies to this action. II.
The marijuana dispensary existing at the filing of this case, was operated by the former property owners Can Nguyen and Linh Duong. Defendant Rivermerrill Investment Holdings LLC (Rivermerrill) purchased the property on or about 6-30-17, the Complaint in this case was filed on 7-6-17. Rivermerrill has since, receiving notice of the lawsuit, in or about September, 2017, has acted in good faith and fully cooperated with the Plaintiff.
Leasing, renting, allowing, assisting, conducting, permitting, or in any way granting authority to make any use of the Property, or any other location in the City of Huntington Beach, to dispense or distribute marijuana and/or any products containing marijuana;..”
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH V. ISHIHARA
Judge Marc Marmaro
TRI COMB VS. CITY OF HEMET
Code § 26012(a) does not provide that the right to obtain marijuana is a matter of statewide concern; rather, it indicates that the licensing and regulation of cannabis-related businesses is a matter of statewide concern. Because there is no state or federal constitutional right to distribute marijuana [see, e.g., Inland Empire, supra, 56 Cal.4th at 753-54; Maral v. City of Live Oak (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 975, 984; People v.
BECK VS POINT LOMA PATIENTS CONSUMER COOPERATIVE CORPORATION [E-FILE]
The Complaint sufficiently alleges that the medical marijuana cooperative earnings were not used for the general welfare of Defendants' members, such that Defendants were required to equitably distribute these earnings to their members. As a result, the class members had a legal right to possession of these distributions, as alleged.
ENERGY EPT VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM
As a matter of law, plaintiff is not entitled to the judicial declaration it is seeking, that the City’s ordinance prohibiting commercial activities involving nonmedical marijuana and marijuana products and banning outdoor cultivation of marijuana is unconstitutional. The regional welfare doctrine does not apply because there is no state or federal constitutional right to cultivate or distribute marijuana, and none was created by Proposition 64 under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.
RIC1711410
Under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, a license will be required for a business to sell marijuana. See Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26012(a)(1), 26032(a), 26038(a), 26070(a)-(b). However, because licenses will not be issued until January 1, 2018 [Bus. & Prof. Code, §26012(d)], Plaintiff clearly has no present right to distribute non-medical marijuana under the AUMA.
ISMAEL RUIZ VS CITY OF POMONA
With that said, courts have determined that state law, which only provides immunity from prosecution for certain offenses, creates no right to cultivate or distribute marijuana. City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729. Municipalities may restrict access to medical marijuana and may even ban businesses that sell marijuana outright. Id. at 762.
Judge Dan Thomas Oki
MCC1700504
City of Berkeley (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 933, 944, n. 10 (judicial notice of municipal code) Under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, a license will be required for a business to sell marijuana. See Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26012(a)(1), 26032(a), 26038(a), 26070(a)-(b). However, because licenses will not be issued until January 1, 2018 [Bus. & Prof. Code, §26012(d)], Plaintiff clearly has no present right to distribute non-medical marijuana under the AUMA, and its claims fail as a matter of law.
GREENMILE HEALTH ALLIANCE INC VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Section 22.56.196(B) prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries which distribute, transmit, give, or otherwise provide marijuana to any person in all zones in the County. (Id.) Plaintiff’s Articles of Incorporation demonstrate that it is operating as a medical marijuana dispensary in contravention of County Code. Plaintiff, then, has not alleged a justiciable claim. The County’s demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH VS. BAULDWIN
TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction is granted as to Requests (A) and (B) [prohibiting defendants from using the property to distribute marijuana and from distributing, or allowing a property to be used to distribute, marijuana anywhere in Huntington Beach] and denied as to Request (C). Plaintiff is to submit a proposed order for the court’s signature. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice of various Municipal Code sections is granted.
Judge Frederick HORN
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH VS. NGUYEN
Defendant Nguyen’s argument that he may legally distribute marijuana pursuant to Prop. 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”), and that the City can do nothing about it, is unavailing. Pursuant to Business & Professions Code §26012, the State, via the Bureau of Marijuana Control, will issue licenses to operators. §26012(c) provides that “[l]icensing authorities shall begin issuing licenses under this division by January 1, 2018.”
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH VS. MENDOZA
Request (A), prohibiting the leasing, renting, or granting authority to use the property at 16561 Bolsa Chica St. or any other property in Huntington Beach to dispense or distribute marijuana, and Request (B), prohibiting operating, conducting, investing, or possessing any financial interest in, working or volunteering for, or possessing any degree of control over, or otherwise granting authority to use the property or any other location in HB to dispense or distribute marijuana is granted as to defendant Mendoza