Preview
1 XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
2 Harinder K. Kapur
Senior Assistant Attorney General E-FILED
3 STACEY L. ROBERTS 6/8/2020 1:05 PM
Supervising Deputy Attorney General Superior Court of California
4 ETHAN A. TURNER County of Fresno
Deputy Attorney General By: S. Garcia, Deputy
5 State Bar No. 294891
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 Exempt from filing fees
6 San Diego, CA 92101 pursuant to Gov. Code, § 6103
P.O. Box 85266
7 San Diego, CA 92186-5266
Telephone: (916) 210-7898
8 Fax: (916) 327-2319
E-mail: Ethan.Turner@doj.ca.gov
9 Attorneys for Defendants
Bureau of Cannabis Control and Lori Ajax, Chief of
10 the Bureau of Cannabis Control
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF FRESNO
13
14
15 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, ET AL., Case No. 19CECG01224
16 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF
17 v.
Dept: 403
18 Judge: Hon. Rosemary T. McGuire
BUREAU OF CANNABIS CONTROL; Trial Date: July 16, 2020
19 LORI AJAX, in her official capacity as Action Filed: April 4, 2019
Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control;
20 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive
21 Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224)
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Legislative History ........................................................................................................................ 10
4
Argument ...................................................................................................................................... 12
5 I. The Case Is Not Ripe for Judicial Review Because No Actual Controversy
Exists ..................................................................................................................... 12
6
A. This Case Is Not Ripe Because the Issues Are Not Fit for a Judicial
7 Determination............................................................................................ 14
B. This Case is Not Ripe Because Plaintiffs Cannot Show Hardship
8 Sufficient to Compel Declaratory and Injunctive Relief........................... 16
9 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................. 16
A. The Delivery Regulation Is Presumed Valid and Can Be Set Aside
10 Only on a Showing That the Bureau Clearly Overstepped Its
Statutory Authority ................................................................................... 16
11
B. Plaintiffs Must Prove That the Delivery Regulation Cannot Be
12 Applied Consistent with the Relevant Statutes in Connection with
Their Facial Challenge of the Delivery Regulation .................................. 19
13 III. The Delivery Regulation is Consistent with and does not Conflict with
MAUCRSA and is Reasonably Necessary to Effectuate the Purpose of
14 MAUCRSA ........................................................................................................... 20
15 A. Statutory Interpretation Supports Validity of the Delivery
Regulation ................................................................................................. 20
16 1. The Text of MAUCRSA Supports the Delivery Regulation ........ 20
17 2. The Delivery Regulation Is Also Supported by the Structure
of MAUCRSA and the Expressly Stated Purposes of
18 Proposition 64 ............................................................................... 24
B. The Legislative History Confirms the Interpretation Underlying the
19 Delivery Regulation .................................................................................. 27
20 C. The Delivery Regulation Is Reasonably Necessary .................................. 28
IV. Plaintiffs Fail to Satisfy Their Burden to Establish That the Delivery
21 Regulation Is Invalid ............................................................................................. 31
22 A. The Delivery Regulation Does Not Unlawfully Preempt Local
Laws .......................................................................................................... 31
23 B. Retail Delivery is Not an Area Traditionally Subject to Local
Control ...................................................................................................... 32
24
C. Plaintiffs Fail to Offer Any Valid Reason Why the Rule is
25 Inconsistent with Relevant Statutes .......................................................... 35
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 37
26
27
28
2
Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224)
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page
3
CASES
4
American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland
5 (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1239,1267 ..............................................................................................34, 35
6
Assn. of Cal. Insurance Companies v. Jones
7 (2017) 2 Cal.5th 376 ......................................................................................................... passim
8 Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. State Air Resources Bd.
(2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 604 .................................................................................................17, 35
9
Cal. Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos
10 (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231 ...............................................................................................................23
11 Cal. Water & Telephone Co. v. County of L.A.
12 (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16...................................................................................................13, 23
13 City of Oakland v. Brock
(1937) 8 Cal.2d 639 ..................................................................................................................32
14
City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc.
15 (2013) 26 Cal.4th 729 .........................................................................................................10, 33
16 Conejo Wellness Center, Inc. v City of Agoura Hills
(2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1534 (Conejo) ..............................................................................10, 32
17
18 Copley Press, Inc. v. Super. Ct.
(2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272 .............................................................................................................22
19
Credit Ins. General Agents Assn. v. Payne
20 (1976) 16 Cal.3d 651 ................................................................................................................16
21 Dyna-med v. Fair Employment and Housing Com.
(1987) 43 Cal.3d. 1379 .............................................................................................................36
22
23 Ford Dealers Assn. v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles
(1982) 32 Cal.3d 347 ................................................................................................................19
24
Great West Shows Inc. v. County of L.A.
25 (2003) 27 Cal.4th 853 ...............................................................................................................34
26 Horwich v. Superior Court
(1999) 21 Cal.4th 272 ...............................................................................................................24
27
28
3
Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224)
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
2 Page
3 O’Connell v. Stockton (2007)
41 Cal.4th 1061 .........................................................................................................................26
4
Pacific Legal Foundation v. Cal. Coastal Comm.
5
(1982) 33 Cal.3d 158 ..............................................................................................13, 14, 15, 16
6
PacifiCare Life & Health Ins. v. Jones
7 (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 391 (PacifiCare) ......................................................................19, 20, 35
8 People ex rel. Reuer v. Nestdrop, LLC
(2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 664 .....................................................................................................32
9
People v. Anderson
10 (2002) 122 Cal.4th 767 .............................................................................................................36
11
Ralph’s Grocery v. Reimel
12 (1968) 69 Cal.2d 172 ................................................................................................................17
13 Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co.
(1999) 20 Cal.4th 785 ...............................................................................................................18
14
Sherwin Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles
15 (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893 .................................................................................................................32
16 Stonehouse Homes LLC v. City of Sierra Madre
17 (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531 .....................................................................................................14
18 T-Mobile West LLC. v. City and County of S.F.
(2019) 6 Cal. 5th 1107 ..............................................................................................................26
19
T.H. v. San Diego Unified School Dist.
20 (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1276 ...................................................................................................20
21 Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v. L.A. County Office of Education
22 (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197 (Today’s Fresh Start) ............................................................................20
23 Western States Petroleum v. State Bd. of Equalization
(2013) 57 Cal.4th 401 ...............................................................................................................28
24
STATUTES
25
Administrative Procedure Act .........................................................................................................20
26
27
28
4
Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
2 Page
3 Business and Professions Code
§ 19320 ......................................................................................................................................11
4 § 19340 .............................................................................................................................. passim
5 § 19340, subd. (a) ......................................................................................................................23
§ 26000 ........................................................................................................................................8
6 § 26000, subd. (b) .....................................................................................................................22
§ 26001, subd. (p) .....................................................................................................................23
7 § 26010 ..........................................................................................................................17, 18, 20
§ 26013 ..................................................................................................................................8, 36
8 § 26013, subd. (a) ..........................................................................................................17, 18, 20
9 § 26014 ..................................................................................................................................8, 36
§ 26014, subd. (a) ......................................................................................................................18
10 § 26014, subd. (b) ...............................................................................................................18, 19
§ 26055 ......................................................................................................................................11
11 § 26055, subd. (e) ........................................................................................................................8
§ 26080, subd. (b) .....................................................................................................................25
12 § 26090 .............................................................................................................................. passim
13 § 26090, subd. (e) .............................................................................................................. passim
§ 26200 ....................................................................................................................12, 22, 23, 24
14 § 26200, subd. (a) ......................................................................................................................35
§ 26200, subd. (a)(1) ...............................................................................................20, 21, 22, 24
15 § 26900 ......................................................................................................................................11
§ 29200, subd. (e) ......................................................................................................................31
16
17 Code of Civil Procedure
§ 1060 ........................................................................................................................................13
18 § 1061 ........................................................................................................................................13
19 Compassionate Use Act ..................................................................................................................10
20 Evidence Code
§ 350-352 ..................................................................................................................................15
21 § 1200 ........................................................................................................................................15
22
Government Code
23 § 11324.1 ...................................................................................................................................17
§ 11342.2 .................................................................................................................17, 19, 20, 28
24 § 11350, subd. (a) ......................................................................................................................13
§ 11350, subd. (d) ...............................................................................................................15, 16
25
26
27
28
5
Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
2 Page
3 Health and Safety Code
§ 11362.1 .............................................................................................................8, 12, 32, 35, 36
4 § 11362.1, subd. (a) .............................................................................................................11, 25
5 § 11362.1, subd. (b) ..................................................................................................................11
§ 11362.2, subd. (b)(1) ..............................................................................................................31
6 § 11362.2, subd. (g) ..................................................................................................................25
§ 11362.2, subd. (h) ..................................................................................................................25
7 § 11362.4 ...................................................................................................................................25
§ 11362.5 ...................................................................................................................................10
8 § 11362.45 .................................................................................................................................25
9 § 11362.71. ................................................................................................................................10
10 Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act ...............................................................................10
11 Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act ............................................. passim
12 Medicinal Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act ..................................................................... passim
13 Proposition 64 ......................................................................................................................... passim
14 Proposition 64
§ 4 ..............................................................................................................................................12
15
§ 6.1 ...........................................................................................................................................12
16
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
17
California Constitution
18 Article XI § 7 ............................................................................................................................32
19 OTHER AUTHORITIES
20 Assem. Bill No. 243 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) § 1 ...........................................................................10
21
Assem. Bill No. 266 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) § 1 ...........................................................................11
22
California Code of Regulations, Title 16
23 § 5416 ......................................................................................................................................8, 9
§ 5416, subd. (d) .......................................................................................................................21
24
Sen. Bill No. 94 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) § 4 ..............................................................................8, 11
25
Sen. Bill No. 420 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) ..................................................................................8, 10
26
Sen. Bill No. 643 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) § 1 ................................................................................11
27
28 Senate Bill 837 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.)..........................................................................................11
6
Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
2 Page
3 Senate Bill 1302 ..............................................................................................................................36
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224
1 INTRODUCTION
2 The Control, Tax and Regulate Adult-Use of Marijuana Act (“Proposition 64”) mandated
3 the licensing agencies, including the Bureau of Cannabis Control1 (“Bureau”) to promulgate
4 regulations effectuating the purpose and intent of the initiative measure. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§
5 26013 and 26014.)2 In 2017, Proposition 64 and the Medicinal Cannabis Regulation and Safety
6 Act (“MCRSA”) were combined into the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and
7 Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”), consolidating the state’s medicinal and adult-use cannabis regulatory
8 systems. (Sen. Bill No. 94 (Reg. Sess. 2017-2018) § 4, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26000 et seq.).3
9 From 2016 to 2018, the Bureau drafted and issued emergency regulations, received public
10 comments in writing and held public hearings for people to provide oral comments as part of the
11 rulemaking process. The Bureau issued final regulations setting forth the requirements for the
12 licensing and operations of commercial cannabis businesses engaged in retail sales, distribution,
13 testing, microbusiness, and temporary events. (AR000001-000138.)4 The final regulations,
14 adopted on January 16, 2019, included comprehensive regulations that contained rules for the
15 licensing and implementation of commercial cannabis businesses, including the retail delivery of
16 cannabis5 to consumers, the regulation at issue in this matter. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.16, § 5416; AR
17 000065.) Through Proposition 64, the voters made it lawful throughout the state for adults to
18 possess and purchase cannabis, while otherwise preserving a level of local control over
19 commercial cannabis activities. (Plaintiffs’ RJN, Ex. 46 [Ballot Pamp., Primary Elec. (Nov. 8,
20 2016) text of Prop. 64, pp. 180, 197]; Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.1 et seq.; Bus. & Prof. Code,
21 §§ 26055, subd. (e), and 26200; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5416; AR000065-66.) Based on this
22 balancing of interests, the Bureau promulgated the following regulation for delivery of cannabis:
23
1
Referred to as the “Bureau of Marijuana Control” in Proposition 64, and later renamed as a
24 result of Senate Bill 94 in 2017.
25 2
All references are to the Business and Professions Code, unless otherwise indicated.
26 3
The consolidation included changing “marijuana” to “cannabis” in all statutes.
27 4
The Administrative Record is referenced as “AR” followed by the page number.
28 5
The term “cannabis” is used to refer to cannabis flower and products containing cannabis.
8
Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224)
1 § 5416. Delivery to a Physical Address
2 (a) A retailer may only deliver cannabis goods to a physical address in California.
3 (b) A retailer delivery employee shall not leave the State of California while
possessing cannabis goods.
4
(c) A retailer shall not deliver cannabis goods to an address located on publicly
5 owned land or any address on land or in a building leased by a public agency. This
prohibition applies to land held in trust by the United States for a tribe or an
6 individual tribal member unless the delivery is authorized by and consistent with
applicable tribal law.
7
(d) A delivery employee may deliver to any jurisdiction within the State of California
8 provided that such delivery is conducted in compliance with all delivery provisions of
this division.
9
(e) A delivery employee shall not deliver cannabis goods to a school providing
10 instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 through 12, day care center, or youth
center.
11
12 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5416; AR 001299.)
13 The Plaintiffs in this case are challenging only subdivision (d) of California Code of
14 Regulations, title 16, section 5416 (Delivery Regulation), which allows cannabis to be delivered
15 by a licensed retail commercial cannabis business “to any jurisdiction within the State of
16 California provided that such delivery is conducted in compliance with all delivery provisions …”
17 (Ibid.) This Court should:
18 1) Decline to issue a declaration in this matter because no actual controversy exists
19 between the parties; and
20 2) Deny declaratory and injunctive relief in this “facial” challenge because the Bureau had
21 authority to promulgate the Delivery Regulation, and the regulation is consistent with and
22 necessary to effectuate the purpose of MAUCRSA.
23 As detailed below, the Delivery Regulation is based on the plain language of MAUCRSA,
24 which states that “[a] local jurisdiction shall not prevent delivery of cannabis or cannabis
25 products” by licensees acting in compliance with state and local law. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §
26 26090, subd. (e).) In the regulation, the Bureau merely recognized that the Legislature meant
27 what it said, a conclusion that is supported by the overall structure and purpose of the statute as
28 well as the repeal of a statute granting local jurisdictions the authority to prohibit deliveries of
9
Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224)
1 medicinal cannabis. (see Former Bus. & Prof. Code, § 19340.) Indeed, Plaintiffs are able to
2 challenge the Delivery Regulation only by ignoring the structure, purpose, and history of
3 MAUCRSA and urging this Court to reach the bizarre conclusion that a statute stating that local
4 jurisdictions “shall not prevent delivery of cannabis or cannabis products” actually gives local
5 jurisdictions unfettered power to ban such deliveries.
6 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
7 Cannabis was first legalized in California in 1996 and focused on medicinal patient access
8 through Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act (CUA). For twenty years,
9 medicinal cannabis cultivators and medicinal retailers were subject almost exclusively to the
10 oversight and control of local jurisdictions. CUA created a limited statute with a narrow scope
11 by giving “only qualified patients and their primary caregivers a defense to the state crimes of
12 marijuana possession and cultivation when that possession or cultivation is for medical
13 purposes.” (Conejo Wellness Center, Inc. v City of Agoura Hills (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1534,
14 1554 (Conejo); Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5.) The CUA also had a limited reach into local
15 governmental affairs as it “never expressed or implied any actual limitation on local land use or
16 police power regulation of facilities used for the cultivation and distribution of marijuana.” (City
17 of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 26 Cal.4th 729,
18 759-760.)
19 Control over cannabis regulation began shifting to the state level in 2004 when Senate Bill
20 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”), was passed. (Sen. Bill No. 420 (2003-
21 2004 Reg. Sess.).) The central purpose of the bill was to resolve “uncertainties” created by
22 disparate regulation and enforcement in various jurisdictions and to “promote uniform and
23 consistent application of the act among the counties within the state.” (Id. at § 1). As a result,
24 the MMPA developed a state-directed program for the issuance of identification cards to
25 qualifying medicinal cannabis patients. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.71 et seq.)
26 In 2015, control shifted even further to the state level when the Legislature passed the
27 Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (“MMRSA”), implementing a statewide
28 regulatory program for commercial medicinal marijuana activities. (Assem. Bill No. 243 (2015-
10
Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224)
1 2016 Reg. Sess.) § 1; Assem. Bill No. 266 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) § 1; Sen. Bill No. 643 (2015-
2 2016 Reg. Sess.) § 1.) MMRSA specifically provided that “[N]o person shall engage in
3 commercial cannabis activity without possessing both a state license and a local permit license
4 or other authorization.” (Former Bus. & Prof. Code, § 19320, added by Stats, 2015, ch. 689, and
5 repealed by Stats. 2017, ch. 27, § 2; emphasis added.) While MCRSA, which MMRSA became
6 known as,6 stated that it did not disturb the authority of local governments to exercise their
7 police powers regarding cannabis, it had the effect of conditioning all local regulations on
8 compliance with the new statewide regulatory scheme and restricted the activities that local
9 jurisdictions could allow.
10 In 2016, state authority again expanded and local control correspondingly contracted when
11 the people of California voted to legalize and regulate the adult-use of cannabis as part of
12 Proposition 64, a statewide initiative. These sweeping changes to California law were intended to
13 “establish a comprehensive system to legalize, control and regulate the cultivation, processing,
14 manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of non-medical marijuana.” (Plaintiffs’ RJN, Ex. 46
15 [Ballot Pamp., Primary Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016) text of Prop. 64, p. 179].) Proposition 64 guaranteed
16 the right of Californians to possess, purchase, and obtain certain amounts of cannabis or cannabis
17 products (Health & Saf. Code §11362.1, subd. (a)), but also reserved to local governments the
18 ability to regulate, but not ban, adult-use cannabis activities (Health & Saf. Code §11362.1, subd.
19 (b)), and to regulate, and even ban the commercial adult-use cannabis businesses within their
20 jurisdictions (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26055 and 26900).
21 The MCRSA and Proposition 64 were two separate regulatory programs for cannabis.
22 MCRSA and Proposition 64 were consolidated into the MAUCRSA, creating a comprehensive
23 and uniform state system of medicinal and adult-use cannabis regulations. (Sen. Bill No. 94
24 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) § 4.) Both the MCRSA and Proposition 64 had included provisions for
25 the delivery of cannabis. However, the delivery provisions in the MCRSA and in Proposition 64
26
6
The MMRSA became the Medicinal Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MCRSA”) pursuant
27 to Senate Bill 837 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.).
28
11
Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224)
1 were different: MCRSA’s delivery provision allowed local jurisdictions to ban retail deliveries7
2 while Proposition 64 prohibited local jurisdictions from preventing deliveries and outlawing the
3 purchase of cannabis.8
4 In consolidating MCRSA and Proposition 64 into a single comprehensive scheme, the
5 Legislature repealed the section of MCRSA allowing local jurisdictions to ban delivery. Instead,
6 it chose to adopt the guaranteed right to access and the express prohibition against local
7 interference with retail deliveries found in Proposition 64. Accordingly, MAUCRSA provides
8 that “[a] local jurisdiction shall not prevent delivery of cannabis or cannabis products on public
9 roads by a licensee acting in compliance with this division and local law as adopted under
10 Section 26200.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26090, subd. (e).)
11 ARGUMENT
12 This matter is not ripe for judicial review as the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts
13 demonstrating that there is a current controversy that would be resolved, or any harm that would
14 be avoided, by the relief requested. If this matter were ripe for review, the Plaintiffs would have
15 to overcome the presumption of the challenged regulation’s validity by demonstrating that there
16 are no circumstances in which the regulation could be valid. Plaintiffs’ effort to overcome that
17 burden consists entirely of an interpretation of the authorizing statute that attempts to interpret the
18 statute to do exactly the opposite of what it says. This interpretation should be rejected, and the
19 Court should find the Delivery Regulation consistent with the authorizing statutes and necessary
20 to effectuate the purpose and intent of the regulatory scheme.
21 I. THE CASE IS NOT RIPE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BECAUSE NO ACTUAL
CONTROVERSY EXISTS
22
23 Plaintiffs’ complaint is founded on the supposition that, in a hypothetical conflict between
24 one or all of their local policies and the Delivery Regulation, their local regulations would be
25
7
Former Bus. & Prof. Code, § 19340, added by Stats, 2015, ch. 689, and repealed by Stats. 2017,
26 ch. 27, § 2.
27 8
Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26090 added by Initiative Measure (Proposition 64 § 6.1 approved Nov.
8, 2016, eff. Nov. 9, 2016 and Health & Saf. Code 11362.1 added by Initiative Measure
28 (Proposition 64 § 4 approved Nov. 8, 2016, eff. Nov. 9, 2016.
12
Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224)
1 uniformly preempted. But there is currently no dispute over the relationship between any of the
2 Plaintiffs’ specific ordinances and the Delivery Regulation. As such, the Court should decline to
3 issue a declaration in this matter because no actual controversy exists between the parties.
4 The challenger of the validity of a regulation may bring a declaratory relief action against
5 the state agency that adopted the regulation in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure
6 section 1060. (Gov. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) However, under the Code of Civil Procedure
7 section 1060, a party seeking a declaration of rights and duties with respect to another may only
8 do so in cases where there is an “actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the
9 respective parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1060.) Courts therefore should decline to exercise their
10 power where a “declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time under all the
11 circumstances.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1061.) Declaratory judgments and injunctive remedies are
12 discretionary, and “courts traditionally have been reluctant to apply them to administrative
13 determinations unless these arise in the context of a controversy ‘ripe’ for judicial resolution.”
14 (Pacific Legal Foundation v. Cal. Coastal Comm. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 171 (“Pacific Legal”).)
15 “[A] basic prerequisite to judicial review of administrative acts is the existence of a ripe
16 controversy.” (Pacific Legal, supra, at p. 169.) The ripeness doctrine prevents the courts from
17 issuing purely advisory opinions or engaging in premature adjudication of abstract disagreements.
18 (Ibid.) “The controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties
19 having adverse legal interests. [Citation.] It must be a real and substantial controversy admitting
20 of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion
21 advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical set of facts. [Citation].” (Id. at 170-171.) “A
22 controversy is ‘ripe’ when it has reached, but has not passed, the point that the facts have
Preview
1 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 2 Harinder K. Kapur Senior Assistant Attorney General E-FILED 3 STACEY L. ROBERTS 6/8/2020 1:05 PM Supervising Deputy Attorney General Superior Court of California 4 ETHAN A. TURNER County of Fresno Deputy Attorney General By: S. Garcia, Deputy 5 State Bar No. 294891 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 Exempt from filing fees 6 San Diego, CA 92101 pursuant to Gov. Code, § 6103 P.O. Box 85266 7 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 Telephone: (916) 210-7898 8 Fax: (916) 327-2319 E-mail: Ethan.Turner@doj.ca.gov 9 Attorneys for Defendants Bureau of Cannabis Control and Lori Ajax, Chief of 10 the Bureau of Cannabis Control 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF FRESNO 13 14 15 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, ET AL., Case No. 19CECG01224 16 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF 17 v. Dept: 403 18 Judge: Hon. Rosemary T. McGuire BUREAU OF CANNABIS CONTROL; Trial Date: July 16, 2020 19 LORI AJAX, in her official capacity as Action Filed: April 4, 2019 Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control; 20 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224) 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Legislative History ........................................................................................................................ 10 4 Argument ...................................................................................................................................... 12 5 I. The Case Is Not Ripe for Judicial Review Because No Actual Controversy Exists ..................................................................................................................... 12 6 A. This Case Is Not Ripe Because the Issues Are Not Fit for a Judicial 7 Determination............................................................................................ 14 B. This Case is Not Ripe Because Plaintiffs Cannot Show Hardship 8 Sufficient to Compel Declaratory and Injunctive Relief........................... 16 9 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................. 16 A. The Delivery Regulation Is Presumed Valid and Can Be Set Aside 10 Only on a Showing That the Bureau Clearly Overstepped Its Statutory Authority ................................................................................... 16 11 B. Plaintiffs Must Prove That the Delivery Regulation Cannot Be 12 Applied Consistent with the Relevant Statutes in Connection with Their Facial Challenge of the Delivery Regulation .................................. 19 13 III. The Delivery Regulation is Consistent with and does not Conflict with MAUCRSA and is Reasonably Necessary to Effectuate the Purpose of 14 MAUCRSA ........................................................................................................... 20 15 A. Statutory Interpretation Supports Validity of the Delivery Regulation ................................................................................................. 20 16 1. The Text of MAUCRSA Supports the Delivery Regulation ........ 20 17 2. The Delivery Regulation Is Also Supported by the Structure of MAUCRSA and the Expressly Stated Purposes of 18 Proposition 64 ............................................................................... 24 B. The Legislative History Confirms the Interpretation Underlying the 19 Delivery Regulation .................................................................................. 27 20 C. The Delivery Regulation Is Reasonably Necessary .................................. 28 IV. Plaintiffs Fail to Satisfy Their Burden to Establish That the Delivery 21 Regulation Is Invalid ............................................................................................. 31 22 A. The Delivery Regulation Does Not Unlawfully Preempt Local Laws .......................................................................................................... 31 23 B. Retail Delivery is Not an Area Traditionally Subject to Local Control ...................................................................................................... 32 24 C. Plaintiffs Fail to Offer Any Valid Reason Why the Rule is 25 Inconsistent with Relevant Statutes .......................................................... 35 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 37 26 27 28 2 Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224) 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page 3 CASES 4 American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland 5 (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1239,1267 ..............................................................................................34, 35 6 Assn. of Cal. Insurance Companies v. Jones 7 (2017) 2 Cal.5th 376 ......................................................................................................... passim 8 Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. State Air Resources Bd. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 604 .................................................................................................17, 35 9 Cal. Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos 10 (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231 ...............................................................................................................23 11 Cal. Water & Telephone Co. v. County of L.A. 12 (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16...................................................................................................13, 23 13 City of Oakland v. Brock (1937) 8 Cal.2d 639 ..................................................................................................................32 14 City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc. 15 (2013) 26 Cal.4th 729 .........................................................................................................10, 33 16 Conejo Wellness Center, Inc. v City of Agoura Hills (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1534 (Conejo) ..............................................................................10, 32 17 18 Copley Press, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272 .............................................................................................................22 19 Credit Ins. General Agents Assn. v. Payne 20 (1976) 16 Cal.3d 651 ................................................................................................................16 21 Dyna-med v. Fair Employment and Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d. 1379 .............................................................................................................36 22 23 Ford Dealers Assn. v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1982) 32 Cal.3d 347 ................................................................................................................19 24 Great West Shows Inc. v. County of L.A. 25 (2003) 27 Cal.4th 853 ...............................................................................................................34 26 Horwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272 ...............................................................................................................24 27 28 3 Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224) 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) 2 Page 3 O’Connell v. Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1061 .........................................................................................................................26 4 Pacific Legal Foundation v. Cal. Coastal Comm. 5 (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158 ..............................................................................................13, 14, 15, 16 6 PacifiCare Life & Health Ins. v. Jones 7 (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 391 (PacifiCare) ......................................................................19, 20, 35 8 People ex rel. Reuer v. Nestdrop, LLC (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 664 .....................................................................................................32 9 People v. Anderson 10 (2002) 122 Cal.4th 767 .............................................................................................................36 11 Ralph’s Grocery v. Reimel 12 (1968) 69 Cal.2d 172 ................................................................................................................17 13 Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785 ...............................................................................................................18 14 Sherwin Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles 15 (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893 .................................................................................................................32 16 Stonehouse Homes LLC v. City of Sierra Madre 17 (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531 .....................................................................................................14 18 T-Mobile West LLC. v. City and County of S.F. (2019) 6 Cal. 5th 1107 ..............................................................................................................26 19 T.H. v. San Diego Unified School Dist. 20 (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1276 ...................................................................................................20 21 Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v. L.A. County Office of Education 22 (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197 (Today’s Fresh Start) ............................................................................20 23 Western States Petroleum v. State Bd. of Equalization (2013) 57 Cal.4th 401 ...............................................................................................................28 24 STATUTES 25 Administrative Procedure Act .........................................................................................................20 26 27 28 4 Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) 2 Page 3 Business and Professions Code § 19320 ......................................................................................................................................11 4 § 19340 .............................................................................................................................. passim 5 § 19340, subd. (a) ......................................................................................................................23 § 26000 ........................................................................................................................................8 6 § 26000, subd. (b) .....................................................................................................................22 § 26001, subd. (p) .....................................................................................................................23 7 § 26010 ..........................................................................................................................17, 18, 20 § 26013 ..................................................................................................................................8, 36 8 § 26013, subd. (a) ..........................................................................................................17, 18, 20 9 § 26014 ..................................................................................................................................8, 36 § 26014, subd. (a) ......................................................................................................................18 10 § 26014, subd. (b) ...............................................................................................................18, 19 § 26055 ......................................................................................................................................11 11 § 26055, subd. (e) ........................................................................................................................8 § 26080, subd. (b) .....................................................................................................................25 12 § 26090 .............................................................................................................................. passim 13 § 26090, subd. (e) .............................................................................................................. passim § 26200 ....................................................................................................................12, 22, 23, 24 14 § 26200, subd. (a) ......................................................................................................................35 § 26200, subd. (a)(1) ...............................................................................................20, 21, 22, 24 15 § 26900 ......................................................................................................................................11 § 29200, subd. (e) ......................................................................................................................31 16 17 Code of Civil Procedure § 1060 ........................................................................................................................................13 18 § 1061 ........................................................................................................................................13 19 Compassionate Use Act ..................................................................................................................10 20 Evidence Code § 350-352 ..................................................................................................................................15 21 § 1200 ........................................................................................................................................15 22 Government Code 23 § 11324.1 ...................................................................................................................................17 § 11342.2 .................................................................................................................17, 19, 20, 28 24 § 11350, subd. (a) ......................................................................................................................13 § 11350, subd. (d) ...............................................................................................................15, 16 25 26 27 28 5 Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) 2 Page 3 Health and Safety Code § 11362.1 .............................................................................................................8, 12, 32, 35, 36 4 § 11362.1, subd. (a) .............................................................................................................11, 25 5 § 11362.1, subd. (b) ..................................................................................................................11 § 11362.2, subd. (b)(1) ..............................................................................................................31 6 § 11362.2, subd. (g) ..................................................................................................................25 § 11362.2, subd. (h) ..................................................................................................................25 7 § 11362.4 ...................................................................................................................................25 § 11362.5 ...................................................................................................................................10 8 § 11362.45 .................................................................................................................................25 9 § 11362.71. ................................................................................................................................10 10 Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act ...............................................................................10 11 Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act ............................................. passim 12 Medicinal Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act ..................................................................... passim 13 Proposition 64 ......................................................................................................................... passim 14 Proposition 64 § 4 ..............................................................................................................................................12 15 § 6.1 ...........................................................................................................................................12 16 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS 17 California Constitution 18 Article XI § 7 ............................................................................................................................32 19 OTHER AUTHORITIES 20 Assem. Bill No. 243 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) § 1 ...........................................................................10 21 Assem. Bill No. 266 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) § 1 ...........................................................................11 22 California Code of Regulations, Title 16 23 § 5416 ......................................................................................................................................8, 9 § 5416, subd. (d) .......................................................................................................................21 24 Sen. Bill No. 94 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) § 4 ..............................................................................8, 11 25 Sen. Bill No. 420 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) ..................................................................................8, 10 26 Sen. Bill No. 643 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) § 1 ................................................................................11 27 28 Senate Bill 837 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.)..........................................................................................11 6 Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) 2 Page 3 Senate Bill 1302 ..............................................................................................................................36 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224 1 INTRODUCTION 2 The Control, Tax and Regulate Adult-Use of Marijuana Act (“Proposition 64”) mandated 3 the licensing agencies, including the Bureau of Cannabis Control1 (“Bureau”) to promulgate 4 regulations effectuating the purpose and intent of the initiative measure. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 5 26013 and 26014.)2 In 2017, Proposition 64 and the Medicinal Cannabis Regulation and Safety 6 Act (“MCRSA”) were combined into the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and 7 Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”), consolidating the state’s medicinal and adult-use cannabis regulatory 8 systems. (Sen. Bill No. 94 (Reg. Sess. 2017-2018) § 4, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26000 et seq.).3 9 From 2016 to 2018, the Bureau drafted and issued emergency regulations, received public 10 comments in writing and held public hearings for people to provide oral comments as part of the 11 rulemaking process. The Bureau issued final regulations setting forth the requirements for the 12 licensing and operations of commercial cannabis businesses engaged in retail sales, distribution, 13 testing, microbusiness, and temporary events. (AR000001-000138.)4 The final regulations, 14 adopted on January 16, 2019, included comprehensive regulations that contained rules for the 15 licensing and implementation of commercial cannabis businesses, including the retail delivery of 16 cannabis5 to consumers, the regulation at issue in this matter. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.16, § 5416; AR 17 000065.) Through Proposition 64, the voters made it lawful throughout the state for adults to 18 possess and purchase cannabis, while otherwise preserving a level of local control over 19 commercial cannabis activities. (Plaintiffs’ RJN, Ex. 46 [Ballot Pamp., Primary Elec. (Nov. 8, 20 2016) text of Prop. 64, pp. 180, 197]; Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.1 et seq.; Bus. & Prof. Code, 21 §§ 26055, subd. (e), and 26200; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5416; AR000065-66.) Based on this 22 balancing of interests, the Bureau promulgated the following regulation for delivery of cannabis: 23 1 Referred to as the “Bureau of Marijuana Control” in Proposition 64, and later renamed as a 24 result of Senate Bill 94 in 2017. 25 2 All references are to the Business and Professions Code, unless otherwise indicated. 26 3 The consolidation included changing “marijuana” to “cannabis” in all statutes. 27 4 The Administrative Record is referenced as “AR” followed by the page number. 28 5 The term “cannabis” is used to refer to cannabis flower and products containing cannabis. 8 Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224) 1 § 5416. Delivery to a Physical Address 2 (a) A retailer may only deliver cannabis goods to a physical address in California. 3 (b) A retailer delivery employee shall not leave the State of California while possessing cannabis goods. 4 (c) A retailer shall not deliver cannabis goods to an address located on publicly 5 owned land or any address on land or in a building leased by a public agency. This prohibition applies to land held in trust by the United States for a tribe or an 6 individual tribal member unless the delivery is authorized by and consistent with applicable tribal law. 7 (d) A delivery employee may deliver to any jurisdiction within the State of California 8 provided that such delivery is conducted in compliance with all delivery provisions of this division. 9 (e) A delivery employee shall not deliver cannabis goods to a school providing 10 instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 through 12, day care center, or youth center. 11 12 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5416; AR 001299.) 13 The Plaintiffs in this case are challenging only subdivision (d) of California Code of 14 Regulations, title 16, section 5416 (Delivery Regulation), which allows cannabis to be delivered 15 by a licensed retail commercial cannabis business “to any jurisdiction within the State of 16 California provided that such delivery is conducted in compliance with all delivery provisions …” 17 (Ibid.) This Court should: 18 1) Decline to issue a declaration in this matter because no actual controversy exists 19 between the parties; and 20 2) Deny declaratory and injunctive relief in this “facial” challenge because the Bureau had 21 authority to promulgate the Delivery Regulation, and the regulation is consistent with and 22 necessary to effectuate the purpose of MAUCRSA. 23 As detailed below, the Delivery Regulation is based on the plain language of MAUCRSA, 24 which states that “[a] local jurisdiction shall not prevent delivery of cannabis or cannabis 25 products” by licensees acting in compliance with state and local law. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26 26090, subd. (e).) In the regulation, the Bureau merely recognized that the Legislature meant 27 what it said, a conclusion that is supported by the overall structure and purpose of the statute as 28 well as the repeal of a statute granting local jurisdictions the authority to prohibit deliveries of 9 Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224) 1 medicinal cannabis. (see Former Bus. & Prof. Code, § 19340.) Indeed, Plaintiffs are able to 2 challenge the Delivery Regulation only by ignoring the structure, purpose, and history of 3 MAUCRSA and urging this Court to reach the bizarre conclusion that a statute stating that local 4 jurisdictions “shall not prevent delivery of cannabis or cannabis products” actually gives local 5 jurisdictions unfettered power to ban such deliveries. 6 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 7 Cannabis was first legalized in California in 1996 and focused on medicinal patient access 8 through Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act (CUA). For twenty years, 9 medicinal cannabis cultivators and medicinal retailers were subject almost exclusively to the 10 oversight and control of local jurisdictions. CUA created a limited statute with a narrow scope 11 by giving “only qualified patients and their primary caregivers a defense to the state crimes of 12 marijuana possession and cultivation when that possession or cultivation is for medical 13 purposes.” (Conejo Wellness Center, Inc. v City of Agoura Hills (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1534, 14 1554 (Conejo); Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5.) The CUA also had a limited reach into local 15 governmental affairs as it “never expressed or implied any actual limitation on local land use or 16 police power regulation of facilities used for the cultivation and distribution of marijuana.” (City 17 of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 26 Cal.4th 729, 18 759-760.) 19 Control over cannabis regulation began shifting to the state level in 2004 when Senate Bill 20 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”), was passed. (Sen. Bill No. 420 (2003- 21 2004 Reg. Sess.).) The central purpose of the bill was to resolve “uncertainties” created by 22 disparate regulation and enforcement in various jurisdictions and to “promote uniform and 23 consistent application of the act among the counties within the state.” (Id. at § 1). As a result, 24 the MMPA developed a state-directed program for the issuance of identification cards to 25 qualifying medicinal cannabis patients. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.71 et seq.) 26 In 2015, control shifted even further to the state level when the Legislature passed the 27 Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (“MMRSA”), implementing a statewide 28 regulatory program for commercial medicinal marijuana activities. (Assem. Bill No. 243 (2015- 10 Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224) 1 2016 Reg. Sess.) § 1; Assem. Bill No. 266 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) § 1; Sen. Bill No. 643 (2015- 2 2016 Reg. Sess.) § 1.) MMRSA specifically provided that “[N]o person shall engage in 3 commercial cannabis activity without possessing both a state license and a local permit license 4 or other authorization.” (Former Bus. & Prof. Code, § 19320, added by Stats, 2015, ch. 689, and 5 repealed by Stats. 2017, ch. 27, § 2; emphasis added.) While MCRSA, which MMRSA became 6 known as,6 stated that it did not disturb the authority of local governments to exercise their 7 police powers regarding cannabis, it had the effect of conditioning all local regulations on 8 compliance with the new statewide regulatory scheme and restricted the activities that local 9 jurisdictions could allow. 10 In 2016, state authority again expanded and local control correspondingly contracted when 11 the people of California voted to legalize and regulate the adult-use of cannabis as part of 12 Proposition 64, a statewide initiative. These sweeping changes to California law were intended to 13 “establish a comprehensive system to legalize, control and regulate the cultivation, processing, 14 manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of non-medical marijuana.” (Plaintiffs’ RJN, Ex. 46 15 [Ballot Pamp., Primary Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016) text of Prop. 64, p. 179].) Proposition 64 guaranteed 16 the right of Californians to possess, purchase, and obtain certain amounts of cannabis or cannabis 17 products (Health & Saf. Code §11362.1, subd. (a)), but also reserved to local governments the 18 ability to regulate, but not ban, adult-use cannabis activities (Health & Saf. Code §11362.1, subd. 19 (b)), and to regulate, and even ban the commercial adult-use cannabis businesses within their 20 jurisdictions (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26055 and 26900). 21 The MCRSA and Proposition 64 were two separate regulatory programs for cannabis. 22 MCRSA and Proposition 64 were consolidated into the MAUCRSA, creating a comprehensive 23 and uniform state system of medicinal and adult-use cannabis regulations. (Sen. Bill No. 94 24 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) § 4.) Both the MCRSA and Proposition 64 had included provisions for 25 the delivery of cannabis. However, the delivery provisions in the MCRSA and in Proposition 64 26 6 The MMRSA became the Medicinal Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MCRSA”) pursuant 27 to Senate Bill 837 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.). 28 11 Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224) 1 were different: MCRSA’s delivery provision allowed local jurisdictions to ban retail deliveries7 2 while Proposition 64 prohibited local jurisdictions from preventing deliveries and outlawing the 3 purchase of cannabis.8 4 In consolidating MCRSA and Proposition 64 into a single comprehensive scheme, the 5 Legislature repealed the section of MCRSA allowing local jurisdictions to ban delivery. Instead, 6 it chose to adopt the guaranteed right to access and the express prohibition against local 7 interference with retail deliveries found in Proposition 64. Accordingly, MAUCRSA provides 8 that “[a] local jurisdiction shall not prevent delivery of cannabis or cannabis products on public 9 roads by a licensee acting in compliance with this division and local law as adopted under 10 Section 26200.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26090, subd. (e).) 11 ARGUMENT 12 This matter is not ripe for judicial review as the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts 13 demonstrating that there is a current controversy that would be resolved, or any harm that would 14 be avoided, by the relief requested. If this matter were ripe for review, the Plaintiffs would have 15 to overcome the presumption of the challenged regulation’s validity by demonstrating that there 16 are no circumstances in which the regulation could be valid. Plaintiffs’ effort to overcome that 17 burden consists entirely of an interpretation of the authorizing statute that attempts to interpret the 18 statute to do exactly the opposite of what it says. This interpretation should be rejected, and the 19 Court should find the Delivery Regulation consistent with the authorizing statutes and necessary 20 to effectuate the purpose and intent of the regulatory scheme. 21 I. THE CASE IS NOT RIPE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BECAUSE NO ACTUAL CONTROVERSY EXISTS 22 23 Plaintiffs’ complaint is founded on the supposition that, in a hypothetical conflict between 24 one or all of their local policies and the Delivery Regulation, their local regulations would be 25 7 Former Bus. & Prof. Code, § 19340, added by Stats, 2015, ch. 689, and repealed by Stats. 2017, 26 ch. 27, § 2. 27 8 Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26090 added by Initiative Measure (Proposition 64 § 6.1 approved Nov. 8, 2016, eff. Nov. 9, 2016 and Health & Saf. Code 11362.1 added by Initiative Measure 28 (Proposition 64 § 4 approved Nov. 8, 2016, eff. Nov. 9, 2016. 12 Defendants’ Trial Brief (19CECG01224) 1 uniformly preempted. But there is currently no dispute over the relationship between any of the 2 Plaintiffs’ specific ordinances and the Delivery Regulation. As such, the Court should decline to 3 issue a declaration in this matter because no actual controversy exists between the parties. 4 The challenger of the validity of a regulation may bring a declaratory relief action against 5 the state agency that adopted the regulation in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure 6 section 1060. (Gov. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) However, under the Code of Civil Procedure 7 section 1060, a party seeking a declaration of rights and duties with respect to another may only 8 do so in cases where there is an “actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the 9 respective parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1060.) Courts therefore should decline to exercise their 10 power where a “declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time under all the 11 circumstances.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1061.) Declaratory judgments and injunctive remedies are 12 discretionary, and “courts traditionally have been reluctant to apply them to administrative 13 determinations unless these arise in the context of a controversy ‘ripe’ for judicial resolution.” 14 (Pacific Legal Foundation v. Cal. Coastal Comm. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 171 (“Pacific Legal”).) 15 “[A] basic prerequisite to judicial review of administrative acts is the existence of a ripe 16 controversy.” (Pacific Legal, supra, at p. 169.) The ripeness doctrine prevents the courts from 17 issuing purely advisory opinions or engaging in premature adjudication of abstract disagreements. 18 (Ibid.) “The controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties 19 having adverse legal interests. [Citation.] It must be a real and substantial controversy admitting 20 of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion 21 advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical set of facts. [Citation].” (Id. at 170-171.) “A 22 controversy is ‘ripe’ when it has reached, but has not passed, the point that the facts have