The Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Plaintiff has not met its burden to demonstrate that it has any probability to succeed on the merits of its claims, and the court need not address the balance of interim harm. See Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678; Jamison v. Department of Transportation (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 356, 361. Under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, a license will be required for a business to sell marijuana. See Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26012(a)(1), 26032(a), 26038(a), 26070(a)-(b). However, because licenses will not be issued until January 1, 2018 [Bus. & Prof. Code, §26012(d)], Plaintiff clearly has no present right to distribute non-medical marijuana under the AUMA. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were licensed, the City’s ordinance prohibiting the establishment or operation of a marijuana business within the City’s boundaries is a valid exercise of the City’s police power.
Hearing Date
October 18, 2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
The Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Plaintiff has not met its burden to demonstrate that it has any probability to succeed on the merits of its claims, and the court need not address the balance of interim harm. See Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678; Jamison v. Department of Transportation (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 356, 361. Under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, a license will be required for a business to sell marijuana. See Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26012(a)(1), 26032(a), 26038(a), 26070(a)-(b). However, because licenses will not be issued until January 1, 2018 [Bus. & Prof. Code, §26012(d)], Plaintiff clearly has no present right to distribute non-medical marijuana under the AUMA. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were licensed, the City’s ordinance prohibiting the establishment or operation of a marijuana business within the City’s boundaries is a valid exercise of the City’s police power.