On April 04, 2019 a
Request,Application
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
1 XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
2 HARINDER K. KAPUR E-FILED
Senior Assistant Attorney General 6/8/2020 1:05 PM
3 State Bar Number: 198769
STACEY L. ROBERTS Superior Court of California
4 Supervising Deputy Attorney General County of Fresno
State Bar Number: 237998 By: S. Garcia, Deputy
5 Ethan A. Turner
Deputy Attorney General
6 State Bar Number 294891
1300 I Street, Suite 125
7 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
8 Telephone: (916) 210-7833
Fax: (916) 327-2319
9 E-mail: Stacey.Roberts@doj.ca.gov Exempt from filing fees
Attorneys for Defendants, pursuant to Gov. Code §6103
10 Bureau of Cannabis Control
and Lori Ajax, Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis
11 Control
12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
COUNTY OF FRESNO
14
15
16
17 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, ET AL., Case No. 19CECG01224
18 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE
19 v.
20 Dept: 403
BUREAU OF CANNABIS CONTROL; Judge: Honorable Rosemary T. McGuire
21 LORI AJAX, in her official capacity as Trial Date: July 16, 2020
Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control; Action Filed: April 4, 2019
22 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
23 Defendants.
24
25 ///
26 ///
27
///
28
1
Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (19CECG01224)
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendants Bureau of Cannabis Control and Lori Ajax,
3 Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control (Defendants), respectfully request the Court take judicial
4 notice of the following documents pursuant to Evidence Code section 450 et seq., and the
5 authorities discussed below:
6
7 1. A true and correct copy of minutes from the November 16, 2017 meeting of the Cannabis
8 Advisory Committee, which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A.
9 2. A true and correct copy of the meeting minutes from the March 15, 2018 meeting of the
10 Cannabis Advisory Committee, which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT B.
11 3. A true and correct copy of the meeting minutes from the July 19, 2018 meeting of the
12 Cannabis Advisory Committee, which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT C.
13 4. A true and correct copy of the meeting minutes from the August 20, 2018 meeting of the
14 Cannabis Advisory Committee, which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT D.
15 5. A true and correct copy of the meeting minutes from the June 28, 2019 meeting of the
16 Cannabis Advisory Committee, which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT E.
17 6. A true and correct copy of Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9101.02.040, subdivision (E),
18 which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT F.
19 7. A true and correct copy of Chapter 6.12 of the Dixon Municipal Code, pertaining to the
20 Cannabis Business Pilot Program, which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT G.
21 8. A true and correct copy of Dixon Ordinance No. 20-003, which is attached hereto as
22 EXHIBIT H.
23 9. A true and correct copy of San Pablo Ordinance No. 2020-002, which is attached hereto as
24 EXHIBIT I.
25
26 Exhibits A-E may be subject to judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452,
27 subdivision (c), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of “[o]fficial acts of the
28 legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and any state in the United
2
Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (19CECG01224)
1 States.” (Evid Code, § 452, subd. (c).) “Official acts include records, reports and orders of
2 administrative agencies.” (Rodas v. Spiegal (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 13, 518.) The Court is
3 authorized to take judicial notice of committee meeting minutes of a public organization. (Duarte
4 v. State Teachers' Retirement System (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 370.)
5 Defendants request judicial notice of the Cannabis Advisory Committee meeting minutes,
6 attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E because the discussion of submitted comments
7 demonstrate the need for clarity about what the regulations require in order to enable cannabis
8 consumers and licensees to participate in a functional statewide market. During these meetings,
9 commenters also expressed their concerns about the lack of access to legal cannabis that would be
10 caused if large numbers of local jurisdictions ban cannabis retail activities within their borders
11 and that such widespread lack of access would drive consumers to the illicit market. The fact that
12 the Bureau of Cannabis Control and the Cannabis Advisory Committee found that there was a
13 need for clarification for delivery licensees and consumers and that the regulation served the
14 public policy goal of eliminating the illicit market are relevant to Defendants’ argument that the
15 regulation in question is reasonably necessary to effectuate the intent of voters.
16 Exhibits F-I may be subject to judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452,
17 subdivision (b), which allows this court to take judicial notice of “regulations and legislative
18 enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United
19 States [emphasis added].” (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (b).) The court is authorized to take judicial
20 notice of local ordinances and the official resolutions, reports, and other official acts of a city or
21 county. (Weisner v. Santa Cruz County Civil Service Commission (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 340,
22 fn. 1.) City and county ordinances constitute official records within the meaning of Evidence
23 Code section 452, and may properly be subject to the Court's notice. The court may also take
24 judicial notice, under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h), of “[f]acts. . . that are not
25 reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort
26 to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h).) Judicial notice
27 under section 452, subdivision (h), is intended to cover facts which are not reasonably subject to
28 dispute and are easily verified. (Gould v. Md. Sound Indus. (1995) 31 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1145.)
3
Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (19CECG01224)
1 Defendants request that the Court take notice of the ordinances attached as Exhibit F in
2 order to provide the court with additional code sections pertaining to commercial cannabis
3 activity in the city of Arcadia. Defendants request judicial notice of the ordinances attached
4 hereto as Exhibits G, H, and I, in order to demonstrate that the ordinances subject to Plaintiffs'
5 Request for Judicial Notice are not current. Additionally, the fact that these ordinances were
6 amended during the pendency of this litigation demonstrates that local ordinances governing
7 commercial cannabis activities are subject to frequent change. If retail licensees were required to
8 comply with a diverse set of fluctuating local regulations, then interjurisdictional commerce
9 would be unduly burdened or rendered impossible. Therefore, the fact that these local ordinances
10 have changed multiple times in the last few years is relevant to Defendants' argument that
11 California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 5416, subdivision (d), is valid because it was
12 reasonably necessary to effectuate the voters’ intent to create a comprehensive statewide
13 regulatory program for the adult-use commercial cannabis industry.
14
15 Dated: June 8, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,
16 XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
17 HARINDER K. KAPUR
Senior Assistant Attorney General
18 STACEY L. ROBERTS
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
19
/s/ Ethan A. Turner
20
21 ETHAN A. TURNER
Deputy Attorney General
22 Attorneys for Defendants
Bureau of Cannabis Control
23 and Lori Ajax, Chief of the Bureau of
Cannabis Control
24 SA2019800695
25
26
27
28
4
Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (19CECG01224)
Preview
1 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 2 HARINDER K. KAPUR E-FILED Senior Assistant Attorney General 6/8/2020 1:05 PM 3 State Bar Number: 198769 STACEY L. ROBERTS Superior Court of California 4 Supervising Deputy Attorney General County of Fresno State Bar Number: 237998 By: S. Garcia, Deputy 5 Ethan A. Turner Deputy Attorney General 6 State Bar Number 294891 1300 I Street, Suite 125 7 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 8 Telephone: (916) 210-7833 Fax: (916) 327-2319 9 E-mail: Stacey.Roberts@doj.ca.gov Exempt from filing fees Attorneys for Defendants, pursuant to Gov. Code §6103 10 Bureau of Cannabis Control and Lori Ajax, Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis 11 Control 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF FRESNO 14 15 16 17 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, ET AL., Case No. 19CECG01224 18 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 19 v. 20 Dept: 403 BUREAU OF CANNABIS CONTROL; Judge: Honorable Rosemary T. McGuire 21 LORI AJAX, in her official capacity as Trial Date: July 16, 2020 Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control; Action Filed: April 4, 2019 22 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (19CECG01224) 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendants Bureau of Cannabis Control and Lori Ajax, 3 Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control (Defendants), respectfully request the Court take judicial 4 notice of the following documents pursuant to Evidence Code section 450 et seq., and the 5 authorities discussed below: 6 7 1. A true and correct copy of minutes from the November 16, 2017 meeting of the Cannabis 8 Advisory Committee, which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A. 9 2. A true and correct copy of the meeting minutes from the March 15, 2018 meeting of the 10 Cannabis Advisory Committee, which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT B. 11 3. A true and correct copy of the meeting minutes from the July 19, 2018 meeting of the 12 Cannabis Advisory Committee, which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT C. 13 4. A true and correct copy of the meeting minutes from the August 20, 2018 meeting of the 14 Cannabis Advisory Committee, which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT D. 15 5. A true and correct copy of the meeting minutes from the June 28, 2019 meeting of the 16 Cannabis Advisory Committee, which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT E. 17 6. A true and correct copy of Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9101.02.040, subdivision (E), 18 which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT F. 19 7. A true and correct copy of Chapter 6.12 of the Dixon Municipal Code, pertaining to the 20 Cannabis Business Pilot Program, which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT G. 21 8. A true and correct copy of Dixon Ordinance No. 20-003, which is attached hereto as 22 EXHIBIT H. 23 9. A true and correct copy of San Pablo Ordinance No. 2020-002, which is attached hereto as 24 EXHIBIT I. 25 26 Exhibits A-E may be subject to judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, 27 subdivision (c), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of “[o]fficial acts of the 28 legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and any state in the United 2 Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (19CECG01224) 1 States.” (Evid Code, § 452, subd. (c).) “Official acts include records, reports and orders of 2 administrative agencies.” (Rodas v. Spiegal (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 13, 518.) The Court is 3 authorized to take judicial notice of committee meeting minutes of a public organization. (Duarte 4 v. State Teachers' Retirement System (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 370.) 5 Defendants request judicial notice of the Cannabis Advisory Committee meeting minutes, 6 attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E because the discussion of submitted comments 7 demonstrate the need for clarity about what the regulations require in order to enable cannabis 8 consumers and licensees to participate in a functional statewide market. During these meetings, 9 commenters also expressed their concerns about the lack of access to legal cannabis that would be 10 caused if large numbers of local jurisdictions ban cannabis retail activities within their borders 11 and that such widespread lack of access would drive consumers to the illicit market. The fact that 12 the Bureau of Cannabis Control and the Cannabis Advisory Committee found that there was a 13 need for clarification for delivery licensees and consumers and that the regulation served the 14 public policy goal of eliminating the illicit market are relevant to Defendants’ argument that the 15 regulation in question is reasonably necessary to effectuate the intent of voters. 16 Exhibits F-I may be subject to judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, 17 subdivision (b), which allows this court to take judicial notice of “regulations and legislative 18 enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United 19 States [emphasis added].” (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (b).) The court is authorized to take judicial 20 notice of local ordinances and the official resolutions, reports, and other official acts of a city or 21 county. (Weisner v. Santa Cruz County Civil Service Commission (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 340, 22 fn. 1.) City and county ordinances constitute official records within the meaning of Evidence 23 Code section 452, and may properly be subject to the Court's notice. The court may also take 24 judicial notice, under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h), of “[f]acts. . . that are not 25 reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort 26 to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h).) Judicial notice 27 under section 452, subdivision (h), is intended to cover facts which are not reasonably subject to 28 dispute and are easily verified. (Gould v. Md. Sound Indus. (1995) 31 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1145.) 3 Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (19CECG01224) 1 Defendants request that the Court take notice of the ordinances attached as Exhibit F in 2 order to provide the court with additional code sections pertaining to commercial cannabis 3 activity in the city of Arcadia. Defendants request judicial notice of the ordinances attached 4 hereto as Exhibits G, H, and I, in order to demonstrate that the ordinances subject to Plaintiffs' 5 Request for Judicial Notice are not current. Additionally, the fact that these ordinances were 6 amended during the pendency of this litigation demonstrates that local ordinances governing 7 commercial cannabis activities are subject to frequent change. If retail licensees were required to 8 comply with a diverse set of fluctuating local regulations, then interjurisdictional commerce 9 would be unduly burdened or rendered impossible. Therefore, the fact that these local ordinances 10 have changed multiple times in the last few years is relevant to Defendants' argument that 11 California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 5416, subdivision (d), is valid because it was 12 reasonably necessary to effectuate the voters’ intent to create a comprehensive statewide 13 regulatory program for the adult-use commercial cannabis industry. 14 15 Dated: June 8, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 16 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 17 HARINDER K. KAPUR Senior Assistant Attorney General 18 STACEY L. ROBERTS Supervising Deputy Attorney General 19 /s/ Ethan A. Turner 20 21 ETHAN A. TURNER Deputy Attorney General 22 Attorneys for Defendants Bureau of Cannabis Control 23 and Lori Ajax, Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control 24 SA2019800695 25 26 27 28 4 Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (19CECG01224)