“In 1996, the California electorate approved Proposiiton 215 and adopted the CUA, which provides ‘Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient’s primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of thee patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.’ By this and related provisions, the CUA provides an affirmative defense to prosecution for the crimes of possession and cultivation. [citations omitted] The CUA does not grant immunity from arrest for those crimes, however. So long as the authorities have probable cause to believe that possession or cultivation has occurred, law enforcement officers may arrest a person for either crime regardless of the arrestee’s having a physician’s recommendation or approval.” (People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1013.)
Proposition 64 allows “adults 21 years and older to use, possess, purchase and grow nonmedical marijuana within defined limits for use by adults 21 years and older.”
Among the 28 intentions comprising statement of purpose and intent of Proposition 64, the People enacted the following:
”The purpose of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act is to establish a comprehensive system to legalize, control and regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of nonmedical marijuana, including marijuana products, for use by adults 21 years and older, and to tax the commercial growth and retail sale of marijuana. It is the intent of the people in enacting this act to accomplish the following:
Proposition 64: The Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016 (“AUMA”), Sec. 3 Purpose and Intent
In People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, the Supreme Court of California held that the Medical Marijuana Program (“MMP”) is invalid to the extent it amends the voter-enacted Compassionate Use Act (“CUA”) by burdening a defense that would be available pursuant to the CUA, but it would be inappropriate to sever the MMP provision creating quantity limits and hence void that provision in its entirety. At odds were the provisions of the MMP Section 11362.71 and Section 11362.77(a), which provides that a “qualified patient” or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana and in addition maintain no more than six mature of 12 immature marijuana plants.
In Kelly the Court reviewed the appellate level determination that section 11362.77 of the MMP, insofar as it places a specific limitations upon the amount of medical marijuana that a person protected by the CUA may possess and cultivate, constitutes an amendment of the CUA in violation of California Constitution article II, section 10, subdivision (c). (Id. at 1042.) The Court found that by extending the reach of section 11362.77’s quantity limitations beyond those persons who voluntarily register under the MMP and obtain an identification card that provides protection against arrest – and by additionally restricting the rights of all “qualified patients” and “primary caregivers” who fall under the CUA- the challenged language of section 11362.7 effectuates a change in the CUA that takes away from rights granted by the initiative statute. (Id. at 1043.) In this sense, the Court found section 11362.77’s quantity limitations conflict with – and thereby substantially restrict- the CUA’s guarantee that a qualified patient may possess and cultivate any amount of marijuana reasonably necessary for his or her current medical condition. (Id.) In that respect, section 11362.7 improperly amends the CUA in violation of the California Constitution. (Id.) Whether or not a person entitled to register under the MMP elects to do so, that individual, so long as he or she meets the definition of a patient or primary caregiver under the CUA, retains all the rights afforded by the CUA. Thus, such a person may assert, as a defense in court, that he or she possessed or cultivated an amount of marijuana reasonably related to meet his or her current medical needs without reference to the specific quantitative limitations specified by the MMP. (Id. at 1049.)
In 2003, the Legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA). The MMPA decriminalized the collective or cooperative cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes. (See Cal.App.4th 1189,1205-1206; Health & Safety Code § 11362.765(a); see also Qualified Patients Assn., pp. 747-748 [discussing Attorney General Guidelines circumscribing the "cooperatives" and "collectives" protected under the MMPA].)
Sacramento County, CA
In November 2016, the California voters passed Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which legalized non-medical adult use of marijuana. In response, the California Legislature adopted new licensing and regulatory requirements governing both medical and non-medical cannabis activities. The legislative enactments are known as the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”). Bus. & Prof. Code §26000 et seq.
Santa Barbara County, CA
The Adult use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”) was a 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California and became law on 9 November 2016. (Complaint, ¶18.) The AUMA led to legal recreational cannabis sales in California effective January 2018. (Id.) California allowed existing cannabis businesses to convert from the mutual benefit corporation model to for-profit entities. (Id.)
Santa Clara County, CA
Under the state licensing scheme, enacted via Proposition 64 (Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA)) and later amended by the Legislature, an applicant is “an owner applying for a state license pursuant to this division.” (Bus. & Prof. C. §26001(c).)
Riverside County, CA
Thereafter, the California Legislature adopted a series of rules and regulations known as the Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”) to govern the lawful manufacture and sale of medical marijuana. Health & Safe. Code §11362.5 et seq. In October 2015, the California Legislature adopted and Governor Brown signed into law the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (“MMRSA”) further regulating the medical marijuana industry. Health & Safe. Code §11362.769 et seq.
Santa Barbara County, CA
Code, § 11362.5(d)]; and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), which provides guidelines to implement the CUA. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.7 et seq.) In addition, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, Proposition 64 (“AUMA”) was recently enacted. Effective June 27, 2017, medical use and adult use were unified into a single regulatory scheme in the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”). (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26000 et seq.) Importantly, Health & Saf.
Riverside County, CA
A [Senate Bill No. 420, enacting the 2003 Medical Marijuana Program Act], p. 2, §(b)(3) [indicating that the Legislature's intent included to "[e]nhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects"]; Exh. B [Assembly Bill No. 266, enacting the 2015 Medical Cannabis Regulation Safety Act], p. 1 [indicating that one of the purposes of the bill was to "promulgate regulations or standards relating to medical marijuana and its cultivation"].)
Ventura County, CA
A [Senate Bill No. 420, enacting the 2003 Medical Marijuana Program Act], p. 2, §(b)(3) [indicating that the Legislature's intent included to "[e]nhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects"]; Exh. B [Assembly Bill No. 266, enacting the 2015 Medical Cannabis Regulation Safety Act], p. 1 [indicating that one of the purposes of the bill was to "promulgate regulations or standards relating to medical marijuana and its cultivation"].)
Ventura County, CA
A [Senate Bill No. 420, enacting the 2003 Medical Marijuana Program Act], p. 2, §(b)(3) [indicating that the Legislature's intent included to "[e]nhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects"]; Exh. B [Assembly Bill No. 266, enacting the 2015 Medical Cannabis Regulation Safety Act], p. 1 [indicating that one of the purposes of the bill was to "promulgate regulations or standards relating to medical marijuana and its cultivation"].)
Ventura County, CA
McDuffie teaches various classes in many areas of the cannabis industry, including a medical marijuana program for the Department of Social Services. AR 157-58. 5. The Hearing Officer’s Decision At the close of proceeding, the Hearing Officer upheld the citations, based on the facts presented at the hearing. AR 182.
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”) Defendants’ rely on Health and Safety Code § 11362.765(a) to argue that plaintiffs cannot maintain a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic relations because the statute prevents plaintiffs from earning a profit from a marijuana collective. However, the statute allows for plaintiffs to recoup their out-of-pocket expenses and to take payment for their labor and services. (People v. London (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 544, 565.) G.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefor summary adjudication is granted as to the Fifth cause of action As to whether the taxes objected to are in conflict with provisions of Compassionate Us Act or Medical Marijuana Program (Opposition p. 15:30-32), neither the MMP nor the CU “grant a ‘right’ of convenient access to marijuana for medical use or override the zoning licensing, and police powers of local jurisdictions” including the right to impose lawfu business and sales taxes. (City of Riverside v.
Santa Cruz County, CA
Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, the Supreme Court of California held that the Medical Marijuana Program (“MMP”) is invalid to the extent it amends the voter-enacted Compassionate Use Act (“CUA”) by burdening a defense that would be available pursuant to the CUA, but it would be inappropriate to sever the MMP provision creating quantity limits and hence void that provision in its entirety.
Los Angeles County, CA
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. Defendant failed to file any evidence in opposition. Motion is GRANTED. No bond per CCP 995.220(b).
Los Angeles County, CA
The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”) approved by California voters in November 2016 recognizes local control to regulate or prohibit all outdoor cultivation and all commercial cannabis activities, including dispensaries (B&P §26200). Here Defendants are engaged in the sale of cannabis to the public in violation of Riverside County Ordinances, and such conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society (People vs. Rubin (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1144, 1149).
Riverside County, CA
The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”) approved by California voters in November 2016 recognizes local control to regulate or prohibit all outdoor cultivation and all commercial cannabis activities, including dispensaries (B&P §26200). Here Defendants are engaged in the sale of cannabis to the public in violation of Riverside County Ordinances, and such conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society (People vs. Rubin (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1144, 1149).
Riverside County, CA
; “Were Plaintiffs in violation of the Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program?”; and “Did Plaintiffs fail to timely retrieve seized Marijuana?” Based on this discrepancy, the motion is defective and cannot be granted. The “issues” identified in the separate statement are factual issues, not causes of action. A motion for summary adjudication is only granted “if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (CCP § 437c(f)(1).)
Los Angeles County, CA
In Proposition 64, the People enacted the following (emphasis added): The purpose of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act is to establish a comprehensive system to legalize, control and regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of nonmedical marijuana, including marijuana products, for use by adults 21 years and older, and to tax the commercial growth and retail sale of marijuana.
Administrative
Writ
San Diego County, CA
The Defendant has enacted business regulations that violate the Adult Use of Marijuana Act that was adopted by California’s voters as Proposition 64. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration of its right to operate a commercial marijuana business in light of Proposition 64, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandate to stop the threats to arrest the Plaintiff’s employees.
Los Angeles County, CA
The Defendant has enacted business regulations that violate the Adult Use of Marijuana Act that was adopted by California’s voters as Proposition 64. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration of its right to operate a commercial marijuana business in light of Proposition 64 and injunctive relief.
Los Angeles County, CA
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ of mandate regarding its rights and duties under a Los Angeles City Ordinance affecting Plaintiff’s ability to operate and maintain a marijuana business pursuant to Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act and to enjoin the City of Los Angeles from enforcing its ordinances and regulations related to marijuana which are in conflict with state law.
Los Angeles County, CA
In reply, County argues that GEC is incorrect – that in fact the Adult Use of Marijuana Act is at issue in both cases, along with the Medicinal and Adult Use of Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, as well as County cannabis laws.
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff, a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation, seeks, inter alia, declaratory relief regarding its rights under Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, and the ordinances and regulations of the City of Pomona (“City”) related to the distribution of medical marijuana.
Los Angeles County, CA
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 Act specifically authorizes local jurisdictions to ban the same businesses contemplated by the Act, which is what the City has done in adopting Ordinance No. 6409.
Orange County, CA
The Defendant has enacted business regulations that violate the Adult Use of Marijuana Act that was adopted by California’s voters as Proposition 64. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration of its right to operate a commercial marijuana business in light of Proposition 64 and injunctive relief. CAUSES OF ACTION IN COMPLAINT: 1) Declaratory Relief 2) Injunctive Relief RELIEF REQUESTED: Demurrer to each cause of action in Complaint.
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
