Marijuana Dispensary Regulations in California

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;..”

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;..”

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

That section provides, in relevant part: “nor shall anything in this section authorize any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit.” Therefore, the City may seek financial information and document retention information to determine if Plaintiff is maintaining proper business records and to determine whether Plaintiff is improperly operating as a profit-making enterprise rather than as a genuine nonprofit.

He is aware of a medical marijuana dispensary called The Healing Center located at 1437 San Andres Street in Santa Barbara. A Google search reveals a marijuana dispensary called The Healing Center at the property. Based on previous investigations, he knows that Juan Carlos Solis operates the dispensary, and that his parents, Jose Juan Solis and Patricia Solis own the property.

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.

The preliminary injunction is granted only as to the request to prohibit the property from being used as a marijuana distribution facility. The request for a receiver and the injunctive relief sought in connection with said request is denied. Hall contends that he is not operating a medical marijuana dispensary, but is operating a marijuana dispensary under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”) (formerly Proposition 64). Hall is not operating a marijuana dispensary under the AUMA.

Further, defendants knew a CUP was required for the marijuana dispensary to operate at their property. They required the appropriate permits in their lease and had in fact previously had been held liable for operating a marijuana dispensary on the property. This indicates they willfully violated the SDMC in this case.

Discussion On October 10, 2019, the County of San Diego issued a Notice and Order to Abate ("Notice") on the grounds that petitioner's medical marijuana dispensary was a public nuisance. AR 10. Petitioner filed an appeal on October 11. AR 8. Following a hearing on December 12, the hearing officer concluded the property is a public nuisance because it was being used as a marijuana dispensary in a zone where it is unlawful to operate a marijuana dispensary. AR 3.

(3) SDPD Detective James Hunter purchased marijuana in an undercover capacity in February 2016. Inside the dispensary, he smelled the odor of marijuana. Inside the product room, he saw a large display case containing marijuana, THC infused edibles, and concentrated cannabis. He purchased 2.3 grams of marijuana for $25. Because he was a first time patient, the employee gave him an additional 3.3 grams of marijuana and a marijuana cigarette for free.

In April 2016, Judge Taylor issued an order enjoining All-Star and Johnson from maintaining a marijuana dispensary in violation of local zoning laws. UMF 23. Around the same time, the owner served Johnson an eviction notice for operating an illegal dispensary. UMF 22. The dispensary vacated the property on June 30, 2016. UMF 31. On September 13, 2016, Johnson pled guilty to maintaining a marijuana dispensary at the property in violation of the zoning law. UMF 33.

For this reason, the Court will grant in part the petition for writ of mandamus with regard to the medical marijuana dispensary permit and order the City to perform its duties under PMC § 5.54.180. B. Commercial Marijuana Operation Permit The ordinances governing adult use marijuana operation permits are similar to the ordinances governing medical marijuana dispensary permits.

Fourmy’s petition for writ of mandate challenging respondent City of Santa Barbara’s denial of his application for a Medical Marijuana Storefront Collective Dispensary permit. Background: Petitioner Patrick R. Fourmy petitions for a writ of mandate. Fourmy appealed the denial of his application for a permit to operate the “Compassion Center” – a medical marijuana storefront collective dispensary.

The Compassionate Use Act ("CUA") only created a limited defense to crimes, not a constitutional right to obtain marijuana, and there is no constitutional right to cultivate, stockpile, or distribute marijuana. (People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 747, 772-773.) Furthermore, section 11362.768 subsection (f) of the Health and Safety Code does not prohibit local government from adopting ordinances or policies that further restrict the location or establishment of a medical marijuana dispensary.

The motion is based upon the grounds that there is no triable issue of fact that Defendants operated a marijuana dispensary. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. There is no triable issue of fact that Defendants operated a marijuana dispensary. In opposition Defendant argues that (1) the Petition is moot because the County has not shown Defendants are currently operating dispensary and (2) that the County’s ordinance is unlawful under current California law and is being replaced.

He is with the San Diego Police Department, having participated in numerous search warrants of illegal marijuana dispensaries, and working with the narcotics unit. (Alvarez decl., ¶4-6.) The court strikes portions of Leslie Sennet's declaration, who is the senior zoning investigator with the city. The court strikes the legal conclusion "illegal marijuana dispensary" and instead considered it a "business" on lines 16 and 17.

However, Puente leased the premises to two other dispensaries after being cited by County for allowing a medical marijuana dispensary to operate from the property. Based on this evidence, Puente was aware before January 29, 2015, that allowing a medical marijuana dispensary to operate from the premises violated County’s Ordinance 348. As such, his conduct was willful.

And, section 204.18 prohibits operating, or permitting the operation of, a medical marijuana business. “C. Medical Marijuana Businesses, Collectives, Cooperatives or Dispensaries. A Medical Marijuana Business, Collective, Cooperative or Dispensary or any other such business, no matter how so named, is not a permitted use in any zoning district or specific plan in the City.

In other words, there is no evidence as to what might occur on the PRE property as a result of the conduct of the proposed marijuana dispensary that could impact Plaintiff’s property at all, much less in a way that would cause irreparable harm. Nor has Plaintiff provided any evidence regarding the tenants at and use of its own property. Thus, there is no evidence before the Court from which the Court could ascertain what impact a marijuana dispensary might have on Plaintiff or its tenants.

Despite being cited by the City on numerous occasions, Defendants continue to distribute marijuana and psilocybin in violation of the Compton Municipal Code. The City informs that the Receiver will file a bond for $10,000. City requests an order permitting the receiver to fund an initial $50,000 Certificate of Indebtedness with super priority status to cover the costs of securing, preserving, rehabilitating, and/or maintaining the property as the receiver deems necessary. (Prop. Ord., ¶ 21.)

Plaintiff has not shown that the person who purportedly leased the property and conducted a marijuana dispensary at the property, Andrew [or Drew] Strampfer, is defendant Drew Stampfer. The lease provided by plaintiff is unsigned by either the lessor or lessee and defendant denies leasing the property or operating a marijuana dispensary at the property. Alternatively, this evidence creates a triable issue of fact as to who was operating the dispensary.

Ferreira were aware that the subject property was being used as a medical marijuana dispensary. Thus, they were maintaining and using their property as a medical marijuana dispensary. In addition, SDMC section 11.0210 defines "person" to include a natural person, corporation or the "agent, servant, officer or employee" of the corporation. SDMC section 11.0210 defines a "responsible person" as "a person who is responsible for causing or maintaining violations of the Municipal Code.

Procedurally, on September 8, 2017, this Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Trosic or the Dispensary from operating a marijuana dispensary on the premises, but the San Marcos Fire Captain found evidence that marijuana remained on the premises as of September 19, 2017. Later, Fire Inspectors similarly found that marijuana remained on the premises as of November 22, 2017.

, collective, dispensary or other marijuana-related business at the subject property or anywhere in the City without a conditional use permit."

It is undisputed that a marijuana dispensary was being operated at Defendant's property, located at 6620 Miramar Road, San Diego, California, since at least May 18, 2016, until December 6, 2016. (SUMF No. 1, 8, 25) Because the property is located in an Industrial-Light (IL-2-1) zone, the operation of a marijuana dispensary in that zone is prohibited under SDMC sections 131.0620(b), 131.0622, and corresponding Table 131-06B.

On December 16, 2010, the court entered a Stipulation for Judgment and Order in which defendants admitted operating the marijuana dispensary since at least May 13, 2009; defendants agreed that they shall permanently cease and desist operation of a marijuana dispensary at the location; defendants shall pay $20,000 in civil penalties; the court shall issue a permanent injunction restraining defendants from operating a marijuana dispensary on the premises; and, in the event the City has to enforce the stipulation

On December 16, 2010, the court entered a Stipulation for Judgment and Order in which defendants admitted operating the marijuana dispensary since at least May 13, 2009; defendants agreed that they shall permanently cease and desist operation of a marijuana dispensary at the location; defendants shall pay $20,000 in civil penalties; the court shall issue a permanent injunction restraining defendants from operating a marijuana dispensary on the premises; and, in the event the City has to enforce the stipulation

dispensary or to conduct cannabis activity.

During the pendency of this action, Defendants are enjoined from operating or maintaining a marijuana dispensary, collective or cooperative at 8606 Commerce Avenue, San Diego, California.

Medical marijuana consumer cooperatives are not listed as a permitted use in the CN-3 zone where the subject dispensary is located. Medical marijuana consumer cooperatives are, therefore, prohibited pursuant to SDMC §1512.0305. The evidence demonstrates that Defendant Isenhower is a "responsible person" under SDMC §11.0210, and that he has caused and/or maintains the property in a manner that violates the San Diego Municipal Code.

Defendants cannot establish that they will suffer harm if prevented from operating or permitting an unlawful marijuana dispensary in violation of local ordinances.

The operation of the dispensary thus appears to constitute a nuisance per se. And, when a nuisance per se is established, no showing of harm is required. (City of Claremont v. Kruse (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1153, 1166.) 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.

Background This is an action to abate a public nuisance – namely, a medical marijuana dispensary – that was being operated within the City of San Marcos (the City). There appears to be agreement among the parties that the property in question is a commercial building consisting of twenty suites or units and that the marijuana dispensary that gave rise to the present nuisance action was operating in only one of those twenty units.

During that time, Chacon also observed a security guard, people going in and out of the building leaving with a paper bag/package, green light bulbs indicating operation of a marijuana dispensary, a banner with a marijuana leaf, wooden pipes that someone indicated were to be sold in the dispensary, and a neon “Open” sign. (Dec.Chacon ¶¶7, 9-11, 13.) On 11/1/18, Chacon observed the marijuana dispensary was still operating, and had an “Open” sign and green lights. (Dec.Chacon ¶14.)

Defendant Fourmy operates the “Compassion Center” – a medical marijuana dispensary at the property. Plaintiff alleges: Fourmy has not obtained a dispensary use permit as required by SBMC § 28.80.030. On August 5 and October 30, 2009, the City issued written notices to defendants to cease violations of the SBMC. Defendants continue to operate the dispensary.

Upon investigation by the Los Angeles Marijuana Dispensary Task Force, Plaintiffs concluded that 14203 Imperial Highway, La Mirada, CA 90638 was rented to and operated as a marijuana dispensary. Plaintiffs now seek to enjoin Defendant Edward Lee from renting the premises to a cannabis business because this act is prohibited by the County Code.

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is a medical marijuana dispensary, not a dispensary selling marijuana for recreational purposes. Defendant asserts that as of the filing of this action, Defendant had a ban against medical marijuana dispensaries in all unincorporated areas and did not permit recreational dispensaries. Defendant asserts that effective July 6, 2017, Defendant bans all marijuana dispensaries.

Peace Leaf argues that City cannot use medical marijuana regulations (Prop. 215) to regulate commercial marijuana businesses (Prop. 64.) However, Peace Leaf presents no evidence that it is in fact operating a non-medical marijuana business. By its own admission, Peace Leaf’s weedmaps.com website claims it is a medical dispensary compliant with California’s Medical Marijuana Law, Proposition 215. (Segura Decl., Par. 6.)

In particular, Plaintiff is to address the following: Plaintiff admits that it is a medical marijuana dispensary (Complaint, Par. 16), which is banned in all unincorporated areas. (RJN, Ex. II.) Even assuming that Plaintiff is a dispensary selling marijuana for recreational purposes, bringing it within the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”), all such entities may not operate until January 2018 when the State will begin issuing licenses. (RJN, Ex. IV.)

Plaintiffs submitted no evidence showing the extent of the drop in enrollment, or evidence that any drop in enrollment was because of the application for the marijuana dispensary. Nor did Plaintiffs submit any declarations or evidence submitted showing the impact of the dispensary on Plaintiffs’ business now that the dispensary has been open for approximately three months. Moreover, other factors weigh against a finding of irreparable harm.

McDuffie argued that a dispensary is a valid non-conforming use, thus admitting that she operated a dispensary. This is substantial evidence that the Business operated as a cannabis dispensary on the citation dates. As such, it is a public nuisance per se under PMC section 14.50.040(28) and (35) because a marijuana dispensary is not a permissible use in the City.

The declaration of Steve Schnick establishes that in February of 2016, the marijuana dispensary was being operated as he physically purchased marijuana from the location. (UMF Fact Nos. 9-12.) The property was periodically observed thereafter to confirm the dispensary continued to operate. (UMF Fact Nos. 14-24, 30-31, 34, 36-7.)

While Plaintiff does not assert that he is involved in marijuana cultivation, his marijuana business does consist of the transfer of marijuana, which fits within the definitions of “Marijuana Cultivation” as referenced in section 19.342.010 A. Also, while these provisions do not expressly prohibit a commercial, non-medical marijuana dispensary, they also do not expressly permit such a land use. Under the AUMA, Plaintiff will have to be licensed to sell marijuana. (Business & Professions Code §2603(a).)

Based on this, Defendant seeks records Plaintiff’s transactions at CFC Dispensary to determine whether Plaintiff was under the influence of marijuana on the date of the incident. Defendant contends that the requested records do not violate any privacy interests and bear on liability.

dispensary (UMF ¶13); and October 26, 2016 when the SDPD executed a search warrant at the property and observed evidence of a marijuana dispensary.

While the Ministry submitted a declaration from Minister Tony Lee, that declaration never denies that marijuana was processed, stored, labeled, distributed, delivered, or sold on the property. Lee’s declaration denies that the church is a “dispensary,” but the issue is whether the church’s conduct meets the definition of prohibited commercial marijuana activity, not whether the Ministry is called a “dispensary.”

Upon investigation by the Los Angeles Marijuana Dispensary Task Force, Plaintiffs concluded that 14203 Imperial Highway, La Mirada, CA 90638 was rented to and operated as a marijuana dispensary. Plaintiffs now seek to enjoin such use of the property because it is prohibited by the County Code.

dispensary, and the processing and delivery of marijuana at 375 S.

dispensary and the processing and delivery of marijuana at 277 S.

Based on his investigation and surveillance of the subject property, his observations of the marijuana products at the subject property, the fact that there is no City or State permit to operate this type of business, coupled with his experience of marijuana dispensaries, Smith believes the business located at the subject property is an unlawful marijuana dispensary. (Smith Decl., ¶ 12; see also Guerrero Decl., ¶ 29.)

Chapman Ave., Orange, California 92866-2232 (the “Subject Premises”) to store, sell, dispense, give away, and/or furnish marijuana or cannabis; (2) Maintaining or allowing the operation of the Subject Premises as a marijuana dispensary; (3) Allowing any person to stay on the Subject Premises for any period of time for the purpose of marijuana distribution; or (4) Using or allowing the Subject Premises to be used as a church or house of worship without first obtaining a conditional use permit and business license

("LMAH" or "Plaintiff") for a Preliminary Injunction enjoining Respondent and Defendant City of La Mesa ("Defendant" or "City") from further processing a conditional use permit application to operate a medical marijuana dispensary submitted by Defendant and real party in interest Evergreen Evolution, LLC ("Evergreen") prior to setting and holding the final hearing on LMAH's competing conditional use permit application to operate a medical marijuana dispensary, is DENIED.

Operation of a medical marijuana dispensary without the City’s approval may constitute a nuisance per se under the City’s Municipal Code, and as such could be properly enjoined. (See City of Claremont, supra.). The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) is not a bar to the injunction. Under the AUMA, Plaintiff will have to be licensed to sell marijuana. (Business & Professions Code §2603(a).) Licenses will not be issued until 1/1/18. (Business & Professions Code §26012(c).).

dispensary, and the processing and delivery of marijuana at 929 Rancheros, San Marcos, California 92069, or at any other location within the City."

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;..”

Beginning on December 14, 2012, the San Diego Superior Court enjoined Senn from operating a marijuana dispensary in the City of San Diego. It was not until May 3, 2019, that the injunction was modified to permit Senn to operate a marijuana dispensary if permitted by permits required per the San Diego Municipal Code. In 2016, Senn contracted with Defendants to provide managing services and to purchase a 15% ownership stake in a dispensary.

Here, the complaint alleges that defendants used or occupied certain real property, specifying the address and identifying the property as a facility that distributes, transmits, gives, or otherwise provides medical marijuana, and therefore qualifies as a medical marijuana dispensary as defined by a local ordinance. Complaint ¶¶ 3-4. The complaint also specifies the dates on which defendants allegedly operated the facility. Complaint ¶¶ 9, 11, 13, 15.

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE County argues that the cases involve overlapping parties, including GEC and County, and arise out of the same transaction or occurrence discussed above; namely, Defendants wrongfully operating a medical marijuana dispensary in violation of County’s ban on marijuana dispensaries and of County’s permissive zoning code. County argues that the case in YC071962 is for declaratory and injunctive relief as to GEC’s rights under those and other marijuana laws.

Specifically, that portion of the proposed order that would enjoin the Defendant from operating or maintaining a marijuana dispensary, collective or cooperative in the City of San Diego unless Defendant obtains the appropriate use permit. Plaintiff filed an opposing brief but did not submit his own separate statement or evidence.

The establishment or operation of any medical marijuana collective, cooperative, dispensary, delivery service, operator, establishment, or provider shall be considered a prohibited use in all zoning districts of the City.

Unfortunately for Plaintiff, among the many criteria provided for obtaining a license was a requirement that the marijuana dispensary not be located within 500 feet of another marijuana dispensary. Vista Municipal Code (VMC) 5.94.090. Though Plaintiff had obtained the "number six" slot, another applicant – former defendant Riverside County Dispensary and Delivery, Inc.

The City adopted a permanent medical cannabis dispensary ordinance (changing the name from medical marijuana dispensary but not the definition) effective April 24, 2008, which requires a dispensary permit to operate a dispensary and allows dispensaries only in C-2 or C-M zoned areas of the City. SBMC §§ 28.80.030 and 28.80.060. Defendants’ location is in a C-P/R-2 zone. The City filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2008.

Medical Marijuana Consumer Cooperatives are allowed in limited industrial and commercial zones once a conditional use permit is obtained. SDMC section 141.0614. Here, Plaintiff offers evidence to demonstrate the property was located in the Commercial - Community (CC-3-6) zone in the City of San Diego and the acceptable uses of property within such a zone. Clark Decl., 3:5-7; RJN No. 8, Exhibit 2. A medical marijuana dispensary is not listed as an acceptable use of a CC-3-6 zone.

Defendant Perris Holding Company is in default, and therefore, does not have standing to bring the present Motion, and, in any event, the City of Perris is the prevailing party since it achieved its primary litigation goal of abating the public nuisance and preventing the operation of the marijuana dispensary on the subject property.

Plaintiffs have proffered evidence that Defendants The Forest Cannabis Dispensary a.k.a. The Green Forest Cannabis Dispensary and Uriel Urias are operating unlawful commercial marijuana business activities, in violation of the Lake Forest Municipal Code, at the properties located at 26439 Rancho Parkway, Suite 165, Lake Forest, California 92630 and 26248 Enterprise Court, Lake Forest, California 92630.

Taylor states that, based on the smell of marijuana and various jars of marijuana in display cabinets, which he saw on the premises leased by the Defendant, the Defendant is operating a marijuana dispensary. Mr. Taylor states that he informed the tenant that the lease was void on the basis of the unlawful use. These facts demonstrate that the Defendant is using the premises for a marijuana dispensary or for the purposes of marijuana cultivation, processing, or delivery.

The Plaintiffs submitted seven affidavits, all of which address the issue whether marijuana activity occurred on the subject property. Six of the seven affidavits appear to relate to activities before the injunction, while one relates to “a fully stocked and operating” dispensary after the injunction. That is the only affidavit that is material to the operation after the injunction.

The premises, save marijuana plants, continues in condition to be operated as a marijuana dispensary.

However, about six months later in June 2018, the City produced evidence indicating that a marijuana dispensary had reopened in the same suite, though it was unclear whether the new marijuana dispensary was owned by the same entity (namely, San Marcos Collective). As a result of this discovery, the City requested that this Court appoint a receiver for the property.

In Mann, the defendant defaulted on a promissory note agreeing to pay plaintiff a total of $400,000 in installments in order to purchase two consulting businesses for state-regulated marijuana dispensary or cultivation licenses. (Id. at *1.)

Merits of Motion for Preliminary Injunction Probability of Success on the Merits Alhambra Municipal Code (“AMC”), §23.85.010(A) states that medical marijuana dispensaries are a prohibited use within Alhambra in all zones. (RJN, Ex. H.) Section 23.04.526 defines “medical marijuana dispensary” as any site, facility, location, use, cooperative, or business that distributes, sells, processes, or cultivates marijuana for medical purposes. (RJN, Ex. D.)

This cause of action sufficiently alleges that a medical marijuana dispensary business is being operated on the subject premises without a valid business license, which constitutes an unlawful use in violation of the Municipal Code. Given the allegations summarized above, this cause of action survives even if operation of the subject medical marijuana dispensary did not violate Chapter 8.64 ("Prohibition of Recreational Marijuana Businesses").

Plaintiff City of Covina moves for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendants from unlawfully operating a marijuana dispensary at the property at issue. (the “Property”). Judicial Notice Judicial notice is taken of Plaintiffs’ exhibits A-E. (Evid. Code §§ 452-453.)

The details of the manner in which defendant permitted or operated the marijuana dispensary are unnecessary to state a cause of action against him and the allegations are not rendered uncertain because lacking in details. Additionally, the court finds the County was not required to perform a regional benefit analysis as a condition precedent to adoption of the ordinance at issue here.

The units were warehouse floors Plaintiff rented to operate a medical marijuana dispensary. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the lease agreements because the rented units were not code compliant. AM Consulting and Alonso have Answered. Conversely, Defendants allege that Plaintiff breached the agreements by building unauthorized structures on the premises and by running an unlicensed marijuana dispensary.

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.

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.

Here, Plaintiff’s evidence submitted with its moving papers as to the existence of a marijuana dispensary that would be in violation of the applicable municipal codes and Plaintiff’s CC&Rs is not admissible, as it constitutes hearsay. Plaintiff submits new evidence with its Reply Brief, consisting of an additional declaration with its Reply brief from Darren Hill, a code enforcement supervisor for the City of Lake Forest.

In addition, Abdul Ahmed appeared in court on March 7, 2022 and stated that he is the 100% owner and President of Melrose Quality Pain Relief, Inc., Medical Marijuana Dispensary. Abdul Ahmed also stated in court on March 7, 2022 that the current contact information for Melrose Quality Pain Relief, Inc., Medical Marijuana Dispensary is 2325 Merced Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733, (626) 688-2231, caahmed@yahoo.com . Counsel also served this motion on all other parties in the case.

Plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendants from operating a medical marijuana dispensary that violates Covina Municipal Code 17.84.030(B) and 5.04.060. (Romero Decl., Pars. 6-11.) Further, the Supreme Court has held in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, that the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program do not preempt local jurisdictions from regulating the use of their lands.

Defendants have not established that they will suffer harm if prevented from operating or permitting an unlawful marijuana dispensary in violation of local ordinances. The City’s unopposed Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The Jurupa Valley Municipal Code is judicially noticeable, pursuant to Evidence Code §452(b). The grand deed recorded on September 1, 2016 and grant deed recorded on August 13, 2018, are judicially noticeable, pursuant to Evidence Code §452(h) and Evans v.

Defendants' failure to respond to the complaint because they discontinued their illegal marijuana dispensary before the time to respond expired is not an honest mistake of the law. (See, Security Truck Line v. City of Monterey (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 441, 445)

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.

Plaintiff, Corina Young, a 10% shareholder and manager of nominal Defendant Southern California Organic Treatment (SCOT), a marijuana retailer doing business as Green Pearl Organics, filed a derivative action against among others the three directors of SCOT, David Gash, Matthew Yamashita, and James Hammermeister, PSC2003199.

Relevant Allegations Plaintiff alleges that the Dispensary Defendants were involved in organizing opposition to Plaintiff’s applications to the Richmond City Council for a marijuana dispensary. (Comp. ¶¶ 32, 36.) The Dispensary Defendants include all the Defendants, except Cloird, Zepeda and Hirschhorn. (Comp. ¶13.) Plaintiff also alleges that W. Koziol, Vasquez and Handoush held meetings where they planed ways of preventing Plaintiff from opening its business in Richmond. (Comp. ¶ 40.)

The petition alleges that respondent and her husband own a marijuana dispensary, and that respondent was providing caregiving needs and marijuana to the settlor, who was stricken with cancer. A verified response was filed on April 12, 2016, alleging, inter alia, lack of standing by petitioner and contravention of the trust's "no contest" clause. The petition was amended by stipulation on May 5, 2016 adding petitioner's brother as co-petitioner.

Lee in support of Sungrow’s opposition sets out that Sungrow does not have its own bank account due to continuing conflicts between federal and state law and the banks’ reluctance to take proceeds from a marijuana dispensary.

Hung Huu Nguyen, is attempting to evict the tenants Joseph Earl and House of Shatter, who are operating the illegal marijuana dispensary. Thus, it appears that a receiver is not necessary at this time. Plaintiffs to give notice.

Defendant testified that he knew the property was being used as an illegal marijuana dispensary. The court takes judicial notice of Proposition D, Ordinance No. 182580, (pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(c)) which prohibits medical marijuana businesses unless they comply with certain restrictions.

Also, even though the commercial lease provided for sole use as a medical marijuana dispensary, absent the consent of the landlord for another purpose, the lease also included language that the business must comply with all laws relating to the use of the premises. The Code Enforcement Division of the City of Anaheim’s Planning Department has issued letter that the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in Anaheim is prohibited.

The evidence demonstrates that the City of Santa Ana has exercised its authority to declare any violation of the City’s municipal and/or zoning codes a nuisance, and the subject property is being used to operate an illegal marijuana dispensary in violation of the Santa Ana Municipal Codes. The application is not opposed. A public entity such as Plaintiffs need not post a bond for injunctive relief. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 529(b)(3), 995.220(b).) Plaintiffs to give notice.

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.

The City adopted a permanent medical cannabis dispensary ordinance (changing the name from medical marijuana dispensary but not the definition) effective April 24, 2008, which requires a dispensary permit to operate a dispensary and allows dispensaries only in C-2 or C-M zoned areas of the City. SBMC §§ 28.80.030 and 28.80.060. Defendants’ location is in a C-P/R-2 zone. The City filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2008.

Plaintiff submits evidence establishing Defendants are the owners of the property which is being used in an unpermitted fashion as a marijuana dispensary on the property. The court finds Plaintiff establishes a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits. (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 72.) There is no evidence that Defendants will suffer grave or irreparable harm should the injunction issue.

There is no evidence as to what day the dispensary ceased operating such that the total amount of days it was operating cannot be determined. Further, there is no evidence as to the number of violations "maintained" at the property during each day the dispensary was in operation. This failure will not prevent the entry of summary judgment on the claim for injunctive relief because civil penalties are not an element of the cause of action. See People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2015) 234 Cal.

There is no evidence as to what day the dispensary ceased operating such that the total amount of days it was operating cannot be determined. Further, there is no evidence as to the number of violations "maintained" at the property during each day the dispensary was in operation. This failure will not prevent the entry of summary judgment on the claim for injunctive relief because civil penalties are not an element of the cause of action. People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2015) 234 Cal.

Additionally, it does not appear that Robert Medina intentionally leased the second unit to a medical marijuana dispensary. Based on the lease agreement provided by him, it indicates that the property is to be used only to run a church. If circumstances change, City can bring a motion for appointment of a receiver. City seeks attorney’s fees and costs in connection with this motion. It does not indicate how much in fees and costs it seeks.

Plaintiff submits evidence establishing Defendants are the owners of the property which is being used in an unpermitted fashion as a marijuana dispensary on the property. The court finds Plaintiff establishes a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits. (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 72.) There is no evidence that Defendants will suffer grave or irreparable harm should the injunction issue.