Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2012

Home

August 25, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 16 Zoning Bulletin Constitutionality of Ordinance —City rdinance Restricts Medical Marijuana Collectives to Those Previously Registered, Banning All Others Collectives argue ordinance is unconstitutional in violation of equal protection and procedural due process Citation: 420 Caregivers, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 207 Cal. App. 4th 703, 143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 754 (2d Dist. 2012) CALIFORNIA (07/19/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether a mu- nicipal zoning ordinance restricting medical marijuana collectives was uncon- stitutional and/or preempted by state law. The Background/Facts: In January 2010, the City of Los Angeles, Cali- fornia (the "City"), passed an ordinance (the "Ordinance") that regulates the number and geographic distribution of medical marijuana collectives within City limits. The City enacted the Ordinance "for the express purpose of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the City residents by regulating the collective cultivation of medical marijuana inside City limits." The Ordinance regulates all "medical marijuana collectives," defined as "incorpo- rated or unincorporated associations of four or more qualified patients, persons with identification cards, or primary caregivers, who collectively or coopera- tively associate at a given location to cultivate medical marijuana in accor- dance with the [California's Compassionate Use Act] CUA and [California's Medical Marijuana Program Act] MMPA." The Ordinance caps the total number of medical marijuana collectives to 70. The Ordinance limits those eligible to register for the 70 spots to including those who had previously registered with the City under a prior ordinance three years earlier. In enacting those limits, the City reasoned that collectives that had registered under the prior ordinance had already shown a willingness to be openly compliant with and regulated by the law. The Ordinance essentially banned from operating in the City medical marijuana collectives that had not previously registered. In March 2010, various collectives and members of collectives (the "Col- lectives") filed lawsuits seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Ordinance. Those lawsuits were eventually consolidated. Among other things, the Collectives argued that the: (1) the Ordinance was unconstitutional in violation of federal equal protection rights because it required eligible collectives to have previ- ously registered; (2) the Ordinance violated state constitutional procedural due process rights because it required collectives that did not previously register to cease operation immediately without the benefit of a hearing. The trial court agreed with the Collectives' arguments. The court issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of portions of the Ordinance on those grounds. 6 © 2012 Thomson Reuters