Marijuana Laws in California

What Are Marijuana Laws?

Compassionate Use Act (“CUA”)

“In 1996, the California electorate approved Proposiiton 215 and adopted the CUA, which provides ‘§ 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and § 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: The Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016 (“AUMA”)

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:

  1. Take nonmedical marijuana production and sales out of the hands of the illegal market and bring them under a regulatory structure that prevents access by minors and protects public safety, public health, and the environment.
  2. Strictly control the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing and sale of nonmedical marijuana through a system of state licensing, regulation, and enforcement.
  3. Allow local governments to enforce state laws and regulations for nonmedical marijuana businesses and enact additional local requirements for nonmedical marijuana businesses, but not require that they do so for a nonmedical marijuana business to be issued a state license and be legal under state law.
  4. Allow local governments to ban nonmedical marijuana businesses as set forth in this act.
  5. Require track and trace management procedures to track nonmedical marijuana from cultivation to sale.
  6. Require nonmedical marijuana to be comprehensively tested by independent testing services for the presence of contaminants, including mold and pesticides, before it can be sold by licensed businesses.
  7. Require nonmedical marijuana sold by licensed businesses to be packaged in child-resistant containers and be labeled so that consumers are fully informed about potency and the effects of ingesting nonmedical marijuana.
  8. Require licensed nonmedical marijuana businesses to follow strict environmental and product safety standards as a condition of maintaining their license.
  9. Prohibit the sale of nonmedical marijuana by businesses that also sell alcohol or tobacco.
  10. Prohibit the marketing and advertising of nonmedical marijuana to persons younger than 21 years old or near schools or other places where children are present....”

Proposition 64: The Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016 (“AUMA”), § 3 Purpose and Intent

Reasonable Amount of Marijuana Under the Medical Marijuana Program (“MMPA”)

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 § 11362.71 and § 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 § 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, § 10, subdivision (c). (Id. at 1042.) The Court found that by extending the reach of § 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 § 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 § 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, § 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.)

Rulings for Marijuana Laws in California

The Los Angeles County Code § 22.08.130-M defines a “medical marijuana dispensary” as “any facility or location which distributes, transmits, gives, or otherwise provides medical marijuana to qualified patients or primary caregivers in accordance with California Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 through section 11362.83, inclusive, commonly referred to as the Compassionate User Act of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program.” (RJN, Exhibit “2”).

  • Name

    GREENMILE HEALTH ALLIANCE INC VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    KC069329

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2017

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).

  • Name

    CITY OF COVINA VS COVINA COLLECTIVE 25 CAP

  • Case No.

    KC070190

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2018

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.

  • Name

    THE CITY OF BANNING VS CALI EMERALD CARE INC

  • Case No.

    RIC1904157

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

THE ADULT USE OF MARIJUANA ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES UNTIL JANUARY 1, 2019. PLAINTIFF HAS NO PRESENT RIGHT TO CONDUCT OR OPERATE THAT BUSINESS. IF PLAINTIFF WERE LICENSED UNDER THE AUMA, THE RIGHT OF LOCAL ENTITIES TO ENFORCE LOCAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS OR LOCAL ORDINANCES, AS WELL AS LOCAL LICENSE, PERMIT, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS IS PRESERVED. (BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 26200, SUBDIVISION (a)(2))

  • Name

    DYNASTY MEDICAL GROUP VS CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE

  • Case No.

    RIC1710781

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2017

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.

  • Name

    GREEN ELEMENT ORGANICS VS CITY OF BANNING

  • Case No.

    RIC1711410

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2017

; “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).)

  • Name

    RYAN ROYTEN ET AL VS CITY OF BURBANK ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC654691

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2018

Ds argue that under Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) local ordinances banning dispensaries are subject to voter approval. This is not so.

  • Name

    COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS FREEDOM WON

  • Case No.

    PSC 1605898

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2017

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).). Further, the interim harm to City if this preliminary injunction is not issued if the inability to protect the public from the, as of now, illegal distribution of marijuana.

  • Name

    ALL IN VS CITY OF TEMECULA

  • Case No.

    MCC1700077

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2017

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.

  • Name

    ENERGY EPT VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00901333-CU-JR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2017

Plaintiff alleges it is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation operating in strict compliance with the requirements of voter-approved Proposition 64 (the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, allowing distribution of marijuana to adults over 21 years of age).

  • Name

    GS420 VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    BC649872

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2017

Further, the Adult Use Marijuana Act does not permit recreational marijuana dispensaries to exist until January 2018. In the interests of justice, the demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Second Cause of Action – Injunctive Relief “Injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in itself, a cause of action, and a cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted.” (Shell Oil Co. v. Richter (1942) 52 Cal.App.3d 164, 168.)

  • Name

    THE GREEN LIBRARY COLLECTIVE VS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    VC066301

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

Further, the Adult Use Marijuana Act does not permit recreational marijuana dispensaries to exist until January 2018. The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Second Cause of Action – Injunctive Relief “Injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in itself, a cause of action, and a cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted.” (Shell Oil Co. v. Richter (1942) 52 Cal.App.3d 164, 168.) The demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

  • Name

    MEDICAL ACCESS CORPORATION VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    VC066243

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Further, the Adult Use Marijuana Act does not permit recreational marijuana dispensaries to exist until January 2018 (at the earliest). The demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained. Second Cause of Action – Injunctive Relief “Injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in itself, a cause of action, and a cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted.” (Shell Oil Co. v. Richter (1942) 52 Cal.App.3d 164, 168.) The demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained.

  • Name

    TOM PHAM VS CITY OF BELLFLOWER

  • Case No.

    VC066368

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.) Therefore, it does not appear that Plaintiff has a present cognizable controversy. City of Garden Grove v.

  • Name

    WEST POINT MEDICINALS INC VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    KC069328

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2017

Your compliance with the Compassionate Use Act (Health & Safety Code 11362.5), Medical Marijuana Program Act (Health & Safety Code 11362.7), and the California Attorney General Guidelines for the security and non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use. L. The operational aspects of Custom Organic, including business hours, staffing, including background checks, security, and sales. M. Any permits or approvals you have obtained from the City, including building permits and licenses.

  • Name

    CUSTOM ORGANIC CARE PROVICERS, INC. VS THE CITY OF SANTA ANA

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00833152-CU-JR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2016

In 2003, the California Legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMP”), adding Sections 11362.7 through 11362.83 to the Health and Safety Code, which provided limited immunity for qualified patients and primary caregivers to transport, process, administer, delivery, or give away marijuana for medical purposes, as well as for patients and caregivers who collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana.

  • Name

    ISMAEL RUIZ VS CITY OF POMONA

  • Case No.

    KC069519

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2017

It appears from the complaint plaintiff is seeking an advisory opinion regarding the extent to which the City of Santa Ana can regulate or ban commercial (non-medical) marijuana distribution facilities in light of Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). (Bus. & Prof. Code § 26012.)

  • Name

    NGUYEN VS. CITY OF SANTA ANA

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00915315-CU-MC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2017

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.

  • Name

    TRI COMB VS. CITY OF HEMET

  • Case No.

    MCC1700504

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2017

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. Under the AUMA, Hall will have to be licensed to sell marijuana. Business & Professions Code §26038(a). Licenses will not be issued under the AUMA until 1/1/18. Business & Professions Code §26012(c).

  • Name

    CITY OF RIVERSIDE VS GOLDEN VALLEY COLLECTIVE

  • Case No.

    RIC1702732

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2017

Neither the Compassionate Use Act nor the Medical Marijuana Program Act expressly or impliedly preempts 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.

  • Name

    PATIENT J.K, VS CITY OF ANTIOC

  • Case No.

    MSN16-0527

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2016

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the conflict between the Adult Use of Marijuana Act and the asset forfeiture statutes is such that there has been a repeal by implication of asset forfeiture laws as to all marijuana conduct…,the Act delineates the specific financial and asset forfeiture repercussions for unlicensed activity is strictly limited to civil penalties and forfeiture of the marijuana

  • Name

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS $100,163.00 U.S. CURRENCY

  • Case No.

    21CV00398

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2021

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the conflict between the Adult Use of Marijuana Act and the asset forfeiture statutes is such that there has been a repeal by implication of asset forfeiture laws as to all marijuana conduct…,the Act delineates the specific financial and asset forfeiture repercussions for unlicensed activity is strictly limited to civil penalties and forfeiture of the marijuana

  • Name

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS $100,163.00 U.S. CURRENCY

  • Case No.

    21CV00398

  • Hearing

    Nov 11, 2021

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the conflict between the Adult Use of Marijuana Act and the asset forfeiture statutes is such that there has been a repeal by implication of asset forfeiture laws as to all marijuana conduct…,the Act delineates the specific financial and asset forfeiture repercussions for unlicensed activity is strictly limited to civil penalties and forfeiture of the marijuana

  • Name

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS $100,163.00 U.S. CURRENCY

  • Case No.

    21CV00398

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2021

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the conflict between the Adult Use of Marijuana Act and the asset forfeiture statutes is such that there has been a repeal by implication of asset forfeiture laws as to all marijuana conduct…,the Act delineates the specific financial and asset forfeiture repercussions for unlicensed activity is strictly limited to civil penalties and forfeiture of the marijuana

  • Name

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS $100,163.00 U.S. CURRENCY

  • Case No.

    21CV00398

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2021

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the conflict between the Adult Use of Marijuana Act and the asset forfeiture statutes is such that there has been a repeal by implication of asset forfeiture laws as to all marijuana conduct…,the Act delineates the specific financial and asset forfeiture repercussions for unlicensed activity is strictly limited to civil penalties and forfeiture of the marijuana

  • Name

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS $100,163.00 U.S. CURRENCY

  • Case No.

    21CV00398

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2021

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the conflict between the Adult Use of Marijuana Act and the asset forfeiture statutes is such that there has been a repeal by implication of asset forfeiture laws as to all marijuana conduct…,the Act delineates the specific financial and asset forfeiture repercussions for unlicensed activity is strictly limited to civil penalties and forfeiture of the marijuana

  • Name

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS $100,163.00 U.S. CURRENCY

  • Case No.

    21CV00398

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2021

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the conflict between the Adult Use of Marijuana Act and the asset forfeiture statutes is such that there has been a repeal by implication of asset forfeiture laws as to all marijuana conduct…,the Act delineates the specific financial and asset forfeiture repercussions for unlicensed activity is strictly limited to civil penalties and forfeiture of the marijuana

  • Name

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS $100,163.00 U.S. CURRENCY

  • Case No.

    21CV00398

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2021

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

The FAC now includes numerous references to the Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”), enacted in 2004, which immunized qualified patients and caregivers cultivating and distributing marijuana for the use of qualified patients, and specifically alleges that defendant Almeida obtained a doctor’s recommendation to legally grow cannabis under the MMPA. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.)

  • Name

    KENNETH KOSKINIEMI VS. MICHAEL JENNINGS

  • Case No.

    21CECG03751

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2023

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

Defendant thus argues Plaintiff would have to satisfy two conditions precedent to operation—the passage of January 2018 and the application for and receipt of a license to operate under The Control, Regulate and tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”). Defendant thus argues a controversy cannot exist and the matter is not ripe for review. Defendant further asserts the first cause of action fails to state sufficient facts.

  • Name

    GRIZZLY GREEN INC VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    BC666261

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2017

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.

  • Name

    PEACE LEAF INCORPORATED VS CITY OF POMONA

  • Case No.

    KC069325

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2018

City of Los Angeles Moving Party: Defendant City of Los Angeles Responding Party: Plaintiff Purple Stallion (No Opposition) FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Purple Stallion alleges that it is a non-profit corporation operating in the County of Los Angeles, and alleges that an actual controversy now exists between plaintiff and defendant City of Los Angeles regarding plaintiff’s rights under the statewide initiative, Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act and the ordinances and regulations

  • Name

    PURPLE STALLION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    EC066758

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2017

  • County

    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).

  • Name

    COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS. GRAND COLLECTIVE 30 CAP

  • Case No.

    RIC1802911

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2018

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.

  • Name

    CANDIDO VASQUEZ VS QUALITY PRODUCTIONS SERVICES INC

  • Case No.

    BC651872

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2018

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.

  • Name

    KYLE SOMMER VS DAVRON RASHIDOV ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC664548

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2018

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.”

  • Name

    CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH VS. NGUYEN

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00909026-CU-MC-CJC

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2017

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.

  • Name

    RAFKHOD VS. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    EC067284

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2017

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).

  • Name

    COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS CORONA CANNABIS

  • Case No.

    RIC1803600

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2018

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.

  • Name

    GERMAN MUNOZ, ET AL. VS. TRUMAN WEATHERLY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    TC028783

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2019

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

Plaintiff alleges that a present and actual controversy exists between the parties regarding Plaintiff’s rights under the statewide initiative, Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act and the ordinances and regulations of Defendant related to the distribution of medical marijuana. (See Complaint, ¶ 7.)

  • Name

    VENTURA MEDICAL REMEDIES INC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    BC656276

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2017

(See Complaint, ¶¶ 6 and 58 [partners agreed to share in the profits of the business, which is contrary to the provisions of the Medical Marijuana Program Act prohibiting the cultivation of cannabis for profit].) Plaintiffs assert the partnership agreement can be enforced in a way that does not require illegal conduct and thus should be enforced. (Mann v.

  • Name

    KENNETH KOSKINIEMI VS. MICHAEL JENNINGS

  • Case No.

    21CECG03751

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2023

  • County

    Fresno 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.

  • Name

    RAFKHOD VS. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    EC067284

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2018

Moreover, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”) does not exempt Cross-Defendants from the City’s nuisance abatement laws. Under the AUMA, licensing authorities shall not approve an application for a state license if approval of the state license will violate the provisions of any local ordinance. (B&P Code 26055(e).)

  • Name

    PEACE LEAF INCORPORATED VS CITY OF POMONA

  • Case No.

    KC069325

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2017

But the court only held that federal law does not preempt the identification card provisions of the Medical Marijuana Program Act, which obligate a county only to process applications for, maintain records of, and issue cards to, those individuals entitled to claim the exemption under California’s Compassionate Use Act. Id. In making this holding, the court noted that the applications for the identification card expressly state the card will not insulate the bearer from federal laws. Id.

  • Name

    JOHN PRICE ET AL VS HARMONY WELNESS COOPERATIVE INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    1414613

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2013

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].)

  • Name

    STEVEN MARCUS VS. DOUGLAS R. MCCAULEY, REAL ESTATE COMMISSIONER

  • Case No.

    34-2020-80003420-CU-WM-GDS

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

However, operation of a collective under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP), is not a trade, business or profession. The Attorney General of California adopted GUIDELINES FOR THE SECURITY AND NON- DIVERSIONOF MARIJUANA GROWN FOR MEDICAL USE, August 2008, Section IV (Guidelines). In Guideline A.2., the AG states: “a collective should be an organization that merely facilitates the collaborative efforts of patient and caregiver members….”

  • Name

    PATRICK R. FOURMY V. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

  • Case No.

    1380854

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2011

Preemption Defendants also contend that Proposition D is preempted by state law—namely, the Vehicle Code and California’s medical marijuana laws, i.e., the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA) and the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA). None of these statutes preempt Proposition D. Local governments have constitutional authority to regulate certain traditional areas of activity so long as the regulations do not conflict with “general laws.” (Cal. Cons., art. XI, § 7.)

  • Name

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS COSMIC MIND ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC609819

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2016

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.

  • Name

    RAFHOD VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    EC067470

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2018

GEC filed a two-page opposition arguing that it is now operating a legal MMD due to the passage of Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”). Other than referring to the AUMA, GEC presents no evidence or authority to demonstrate that it is operating a legal MMD.

  • Name

    COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS CHEUNG AND TAN FAMILY TRUST ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC641872

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2017

San Diego NORML, supra, the Court of Appeal found that the County only had standing to challenge the portions of the Medical Marijuana Program that imposed obligations on the counties under the theory that the law violated federal preemption. (Id. at p. 818.) On the other hand, in Native American Heritage Com. v.

  • Name

    COUNTY OF FRESNO VS. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    23CECG01368

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2023

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

In that brief, Defendants contend that Proposition D’s vehicle-based definition of “medical marijuana business” is constitutionally defective due to State law presumption from the Vehicle Code and the State’s medical marijuana laws including the Medical Marijuana Program Act (codified as Health and Safety Code, sections 11362.7 through 11362.9 (“MMPA”) and the Medicinal and Adult-Use Regulation and Safety Act (codified as Business and Professions Code, sections 26000 through 26231.2 (“MAUCRSA”). .

  • Name

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS COSMIC MIND ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC609819

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2017

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.

  • Name

    PETITION OF EL CAJON RESIDENTS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00045604-CU-WM-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2018

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.

  • Name

    RYAN ROYTEN ET AL VS CITY OF BURBANK ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC654691

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2018

Regulation of Marijuana Dispensaries The California Legislature, pursuant to the passage of Proposition 64 (Adult Use of Marijuana Act [“AUMA”], and enactment of what is known as the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”) (Business & Professions Code § 26000 et seq.), has “establish[ed] a comprehensive system to control and regulate the cultivation, distribution, transport, storage, manufacturing, processing and sale of . . . (1) Medicinal cannabis and medicinal cannabis

  • Name

    CITY OF LA PUENTE, A GENERAL LAW CITY VS DANK CITY, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21PSCV00417

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

Additionally, on November 8, 2016, the majority of California voters passed Proposition 64 – The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (Prop 64). Prop 64 permits adults 21 years of age and over to possess and grow specified amounts of marijuana for recreational use. (Prop. 64.) Defendant is not commenting on any regulations or illegality regarding marijuana cultivation.

  • Name

    RONALD AUSTIN VS TIMOTHY JAMES KIGAR

  • Case No.

    21AVCV00268

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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.

  • Name

    ELIZABETH DIANE MCDUFFIE VS CITY OF PASADENA ET AL

  • Case No.

    BS170218

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2019

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).)

  • Name

    TAFT VS CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY HEARING ON WRIT OF MANDATE

  • Case No.

    RIC1902360

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

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.

  • Name

    LION EYE FARMS INC ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

  • Case No.

    20CV00949

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

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.)

  • Name

    JONATHAN SKLAR ET AL VS JASON CHIN ET AL

  • Case No.

    20CV366360

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

In 2016, the voters of California approved Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which legalized the adult use of marijuana under a very different regulatory scheme than Proposition 215. (See, Bus. & Prof. Code §26000 et seq.) NHC received a score of 5 out of 10 for section A3 because it was unable to demonstrate significant experience owning and operating cannabis operations in Santa Barbara County under Proposition 64 or that it has any current cannabis licenses in County. (NHC Ex. C.)

  • Name

    NHC ORCUTT 405, LLC VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL

  • Case No.

    21CV00979

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2021

In November 2016, the California voters passed Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which legalized non-medical adult use of marijuana. The California Legislature subsequently enacted the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”) to establish new licensing and regulatory requirements for both medical and non-medical cannabis activities. Bus. & Prof. Code §26000 et seq. Following the enactment of MAUCRSA, County adopted Ordinance No. 5019 in November 2017.

  • Name

    JACOB PICKERING ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL

  • Case No.

    20CV03338

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2021

LAWA Screening Procedure In November 2016, the Legislature passed the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), which allowed anyone over 21 years of age to possess up to 28.5 grams, or one ounce, of cannabis or eight grams of concentrated cannabis. AR 802, 1129. LAWA police officers have no jurisdiction to arrest individuals complying with state law. AR 1137.

  • Name

    EDMOND FLOURNOY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCP03690

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope