On April 04, 2019 a
Court Notice
was filed
involving a dispute between
City Of Agoura Hills,
City Of Angels Camp,
City Of Arcadia,
City Of Atwater,
City Of Beverly Hills,
City Of Ceres,
City Of Clovis,
City Of Covina,
City Of Dixon,
City Of Downey,
City Of Mcfarland,
City Of Newman,
City Of Oakdale,
City Of Palmdale,
City Of Patterson,
City Of Riverbank,
City Of Riverside,
City Of San Pablo,
City Of Sonora,
City Of Tehachapi,
City Of Temecula,
City Of Tracy,
City Of Turlock,
City Of Vacaville,
County Of Santa Cruz,
and
Ajax, Lori,
Bureau Of Cannibas Control,
for 39 Unlimited - Other Judicial Review
in the District Court of Fresno County.
Preview
XAVJER BECERR-A
Attorney Genera] 0f California
IQ.
'HARINDER K. KAPUR
Senior Assistant Att'Orney Genera]
State Bar Number: 19876.9
S1 ACE_Y L. ROBERTS
Super» 15mg Deputy Afiomey General
State Bar Number: 23.7998
.600 West Broadway, Suite 18.00
.San Diego CA 92] OI
P. O Box 85266
San Diego, CA 92186-5266 RECEIVED
Telephone: (619) 73849407 12/19/2019 11:19 AM
Fax: (619) 645— 2061 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
By: A. Ramos, Deputy
E -mai_1. Harinder. Kapur@doj. ca. gov.
Afro; neys for Bur em: ofC annabis Conn oi
and Lari Ajax C‘hr‘equ the Em eat: qumm'abis Exemp'rfi'omfiling'jées
C am: 0f pursuant [a Gov. Code §6‘1 03'
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1'1
COUNTY OF FRESNO
12
13
14
_1.5' COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, ET AL, Case N0. 1'9CECG01224
1'6-
Plaintiffs, JOINT PETITION AND [PROPOSED]
‘
ORDER RE: EXEMPTION FROM
17 v. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION, MANDATORY _
18 _
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, AND
BUREAU OF CANNABIS CONTROL; TRIAL READINESS CONFERENCE
19 LORI AJAX, in her official :capacity as
Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control;
20 and DOES I through 10 inclusive, Dept: 5'02-
.Tudg'e: The Honorable Alan M. Simpson
21 Defendants. Trial Date: Aptil-20,-2020
Action Fiied: April 4, 2019
22
2'3 Plaintiffs Céunty 0f Santa Cruz, et al. (Plaintiffs) 'filed a complaint. for declaratory relief
2.4 against Defendants. Bufeau'of'Cannabis Control and Lori Ajax, in her officiai capacity a_s the.-
.25. Chief 0fthe Bureau of'Cannabis Control, (Defendants) alleging 'that the California Code of
26 Regulations, title 16, section S416, subdivision (d) (Cannabis 'DéIiVery Regulation) isinvalid
because itis inconsistentwith Proposition 64 anti the Medicinal and AdultuUse Cannabis.
28 Regulation and Safely Act (California Business a'n'dP'rofes'sibns Code section 26000, ct seq).
l
Joint Petition and [Proposed] Order Re: Exemption from Altcmatiye'Dispute. Resolution, MandatmySeltle'mem'
Conference, and Trial Readiness Conference (l 9CEC601224)
Because this case involves purely a question of law (i.e., the validity of the Cannabis Delivery
Regulation), Plaintiffs and Defendants seek an order from the Court exempting the parties from
the following Court requirements and dates:
1. Alternative Dispute Resolution requirement pursuant t0 Local Rule, Rule 2.4.1 and
Civil Standing Order N0. 07-0628;
2. Hearing on Order to Show Cause re: Alternative Dispute Resolution Stipulation on
January 21, 2020 at 3:30 p.m.;
3. Mandatory Settlement Conference on April 2, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.; and,
4. Trial Readiness Conference on April 17, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.
10 The parties are seeking exemption from these requirements and Court dates pursuant t0
11 Local Rule 2.5.1 and 2.6.2 on the grounds that this case involves strictly a legal question
12 regarding whether the Cannabis Delivery Regulation is consistent with Proposition 64 and the
13 Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, the parties concurrently filed a
14 proposed trial briefing schedule, and it would be extremely unlikely that alternative dispute
15 resolution and a settlement conference will resolve this dispute over the interpretation of
16 Cannabis Delivery Regulation.
17 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
18 Dated: December L2, 2019 Respectfully Submitted,
19 XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
20 HARINDER K. KAPUR
Senior Assistant Attorney General
21
22
23 A
jam
EY L. ROB
@mdj
pervising Deputy Attorney General
24
Attorneysfor Defendants, Bureau 0f
Cannabis Control and Lori Ajax, Chiefof
25
the Bureau ofCannabis Control
26
27
28
7
Joint Petition and [Proposed] Order Re: Exemption from Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mandatory Settlement
Conference, and Trial Readiness Conference (I9CECG01224)
Dated: DecemberCL 2019 ReSpectfully Submitted,
CHURCHWELL WHITE LLP
©®QQUIAUJNH
EVEN G. CHURCHWELL
Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
NNNNNNNNNu—n—wp—Ap—dp—n—‘p—nn—a—
OoflatII-thi-‘OOOONOxUIAWN—‘O
3
Joint Petitionand [Proposed] Order Re: Exemption fiom Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mandatory Settlement
Conference, and Trial Readiness Conference (19CECGOI224)
ORDER
_Good. cause appearingtherefor; the Court hereby Orders that:
I. The_parti'es are" exempt from the Altemat'iv’e Dispute" Resolution requirement set fofih
under Local and Ci-ViIStandin'g Order No.
1'
Rule, Rule 2.4. 07-0628;
f2, The "Hearing .0n- O.rder'to..Sh0w Cause re: Alternative Dispute ResolutionStipulation
on January I213, 2020 at 3:30 p.m._ is vacated;
'3.
The patties a're'e'XBmpt fi'Om the Mandatory Settlement. Conference u'nder- Lbcal Rule,
Rule 2.5. 1;
4.. The. Mml'datony'Settlem'ent Conference ”011April 2, 2020. at 10:00 _a.-1'n.
is vacated;
1 0 4. The parties are exempt frOm the Trial Readiness Conference under 2.6.2; a_n‘d
I 1.
6.. The’Trial Readiness Conference on April 17, 2.020 at 9:330 a._m. is vacated-
1.2
ITI‘IS S0 ORDERED;
1.3
.14 DATED:
JUDGE QFIT'HZE' SUPERIOR COURT
1 5
1'6
f17
1:8
1 9
20
2.1.
22
2'3
24
2'5
26
27
2'8
4
and [Proposed] Ofd'e'r'
Petition
.Jdin‘t Ré: Exempt-ion’ fr'omAlte’rn‘ative_.Disp._ute. ReSolution, Mandatory- Settlement
Conference, and' Trial Readiness Conference 9CECGO
(__l 224)
1_
Preview
XAVJER BECERR-A Attorney Genera] 0f California IQ. 'HARINDER K. KAPUR Senior Assistant Att'Orney Genera] State Bar Number: 19876.9 S1 ACE_Y L. ROBERTS Super» 15mg Deputy Afiomey General State Bar Number: 23.7998 .600 West Broadway, Suite 18.00 .San Diego CA 92] OI P. O Box 85266 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 RECEIVED Telephone: (619) 73849407 12/19/2019 11:19 AM Fax: (619) 645— 2061 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT By: A. Ramos, Deputy E -mai_1. Harinder. Kapur@doj. ca. gov. Afro; neys for Bur em: ofC annabis Conn oi and Lari Ajax C‘hr‘equ the Em eat: qumm'abis Exemp'rfi'omfiling'jées C am: 0f pursuant [a Gov. Code §6‘1 03' 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1'1 COUNTY OF FRESNO 12 13 14 _1.5' COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, ET AL, Case N0. 1'9CECG01224 1'6- Plaintiffs, JOINT PETITION AND [PROPOSED] ‘ ORDER RE: EXEMPTION FROM 17 v. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, MANDATORY _ 18 _ SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, AND BUREAU OF CANNABIS CONTROL; TRIAL READINESS CONFERENCE 19 LORI AJAX, in her official :capacity as Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control; 20 and DOES I through 10 inclusive, Dept: 5'02- .Tudg'e: The Honorable Alan M. Simpson 21 Defendants. Trial Date: Aptil-20,-2020 Action Fiied: April 4, 2019 22 2'3 Plaintiffs Céunty 0f Santa Cruz, et al. (Plaintiffs) 'filed a complaint. for declaratory relief 2.4 against Defendants. Bufeau'of'Cannabis Control and Lori Ajax, in her officiai capacity a_s the.- .25. Chief 0fthe Bureau of'Cannabis Control, (Defendants) alleging 'that the California Code of 26 Regulations, title 16, section S416, subdivision (d) (Cannabis 'DéIiVery Regulation) isinvalid because itis inconsistentwith Proposition 64 anti the Medicinal and AdultuUse Cannabis. 28 Regulation and Safely Act (California Business a'n'dP'rofes'sibns Code section 26000, ct seq). l Joint Petition and [Proposed] Order Re: Exemption from Altcmatiye'Dispute. Resolution, MandatmySeltle'mem' Conference, and Trial Readiness Conference (l 9CEC601224) Because this case involves purely a question of law (i.e., the validity of the Cannabis Delivery Regulation), Plaintiffs and Defendants seek an order from the Court exempting the parties from the following Court requirements and dates: 1. Alternative Dispute Resolution requirement pursuant t0 Local Rule, Rule 2.4.1 and Civil Standing Order N0. 07-0628; 2. Hearing on Order to Show Cause re: Alternative Dispute Resolution Stipulation on January 21, 2020 at 3:30 p.m.; 3. Mandatory Settlement Conference on April 2, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.; and, 4. Trial Readiness Conference on April 17, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. 10 The parties are seeking exemption from these requirements and Court dates pursuant t0 11 Local Rule 2.5.1 and 2.6.2 on the grounds that this case involves strictly a legal question 12 regarding whether the Cannabis Delivery Regulation is consistent with Proposition 64 and the 13 Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, the parties concurrently filed a 14 proposed trial briefing schedule, and it would be extremely unlikely that alternative dispute 15 resolution and a settlement conference will resolve this dispute over the interpretation of 16 Cannabis Delivery Regulation. 17 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 18 Dated: December L2, 2019 Respectfully Submitted, 19 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 20 HARINDER K. KAPUR Senior Assistant Attorney General 21 22 23 A jam EY L. ROB @mdj pervising Deputy Attorney General 24 Attorneysfor Defendants, Bureau 0f Cannabis Control and Lori Ajax, Chiefof 25 the Bureau ofCannabis Control 26 27 28 7 Joint Petition and [Proposed] Order Re: Exemption from Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mandatory Settlement Conference, and Trial Readiness Conference (I9CECG01224) Dated: DecemberCL 2019 ReSpectfully Submitted, CHURCHWELL WHITE LLP ©®QQUIAUJNH EVEN G. CHURCHWELL Attorneysfor Plaintiffs NNNNNNNNNu—n—wp—Ap—dp—n—‘p—nn—a— OoflatII-thi-‘OOOONOxUIAWN—‘O 3 Joint Petitionand [Proposed] Order Re: Exemption fiom Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mandatory Settlement Conference, and Trial Readiness Conference (19CECGOI224) ORDER _Good. cause appearingtherefor; the Court hereby Orders that: I. The_parti'es are" exempt from the Altemat'iv’e Dispute" Resolution requirement set fofih under Local and Ci-ViIStandin'g Order No. 1' Rule, Rule 2.4. 07-0628; f2, The "Hearing .0n- O.rder'to..Sh0w Cause re: Alternative Dispute ResolutionStipulation on January I213, 2020 at 3:30 p.m._ is vacated; '3. The patties a're'e'XBmpt fi'Om the Mandatory Settlement. Conference u'nder- Lbcal Rule, Rule 2.5. 1; 4.. The. Mml'datony'Settlem'ent Conference ”011April 2, 2020. at 10:00 _a.-1'n. is vacated; 1 0 4. The parties are exempt frOm the Trial Readiness Conference under 2.6.2; a_n‘d I 1. 6.. The’Trial Readiness Conference on April 17, 2.020 at 9:330 a._m. is vacated- 1.2 ITI‘IS S0 ORDERED; 1.3 .14 DATED: JUDGE QFIT'HZE' SUPERIOR COURT 1 5 1'6 f17 1:8 1 9 20 2.1. 22 2'3 24 2'5 26 27 2'8 4 and [Proposed] Ofd'e'r' Petition .Jdin‘t Ré: Exempt-ion’ fr'omAlte’rn‘ative_.Disp._ute. ReSolution, Mandatory- Settlement Conference, and' Trial Readiness Conference 9CECGO (__l 224) 1_