Kind & Compassionate v. City of Long Beach

Decision Date12 July 2016
Docket NumberB258806
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesTHE KIND AND COMPASSIONATE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LONG BEACH et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Matthew Pappas, Mission Viejo; Rallo Law Firm, Arthur J. Travieso, Costa Mesa, and Amy L. Bingham for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Charles Parkin, City Attorney, and Theodore B. Zinger, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.

GRIMES

, J.

SUMMARY

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint after the trial court sustained a demurrer. The court granted leave to amend, but plaintiffs never did.

Plaintiffs are two medical cannabis “collectives/dispensaries” (The Kind and Compassionate, and Final Cut) and three medical cannabis patients, who are members of The Kind and Compassionate collective. Plaintiffs alleged 11 causes of action against the City of Long Beach (city) and/or three of its employees or officers (Eric Sund, Robert Shannon and Robert Foster), all arising from the city's enforcement of municipal ordinances that first regulated and then entirely prohibited the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries within the city's borders. The principal claim in the complaint is that defendants have discriminated against plaintiffs by enacting and enforcing these ordinances, which plaintiffs assert are facially discriminatory and have a disparate and adverse impact on persons with disabilities. Plaintiffs also assert various constitutional violations and tort claims.

We affirm the trial court's judgment dismissing the complaint.

FACTS AND LEGAL BACKGROUND

Before we turn to the facts alleged in the complaint, we briefly note several established principles applicable to medical marijuana dispensaries or collectives.

First, federal law prohibits the possession, distribution and manufacture of marijuana, finding it to be “a drug with ‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States' [citation], and there is no medical necessity exception to prosecution and conviction under the federal act [citation].” (City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, 738–739, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 409, 300 P.3d 494

(Riverside ).)

Second, California law also imposes sanctions on marijuana possession, cultivation, and related activities. In California, however, voters and the Legislature have adopted limited exceptions to those sanctions where marijuana is possessed, cultivated, distributed and transported for medical purposes. (Riverside, supra , 56 Cal.4th at p. 739, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 409, 300 P.3d 494

.) These statutes are the Compassionate Use Act (CUA; Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5 ), adopted by the voters in 1996, and the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP; § 11362.7 et seq.), enacted in 2004. “Among other things, these statutes exempt the ‘collective[ ] or cooperative[ ] ... cultiva[tion] of medical marijuana by qualified patients and their designated caregivers from prosecution or abatement under specified state criminal and nuisance laws that would otherwise prohibit those activities.” (Riverside , at p. 737, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 409, 300 P.3d 494.)

Third, the CUA and the MMP “have no effect on the federal enforceability of the [Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C § 801 et seq.

) ] in California.” (Riverside, supra , 56 Cal.4th at p. 740, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 409, 300 P.3d 494.) The CUA and the MMP have a “narrow reach” (Riverside , at p. 745, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 409, 300 P.3d 494 ), providing only “a limited immunity from specified state marijuana laws (id. at p. 748, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 409, 300 P.3d 494 ).

Fourth, “the CUA and the MMP do not expressly or impliedly preempt [a city's] zoning provisions declaring a medical marijuana dispensary ... to be a prohibited use, and a public nuisance, anywhere within the city limits.” (Riverside, supra , 56 Cal.4th at p. 752, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 409, 300 P.3d 494

; id. at p. 754, fn. 8, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 409, 300 P.3d 494 [“the CUA and the MMP, by their substantive terms, grant limited exemptions from certain state criminal and nuisance laws, but they do not expressly or impliedly restrict the authority of local jurisdictions to decide whether local land may be used to operate medical marijuana facilities”].)

Fifth, the Ninth Circuit has held that “medical marijuana use is not protected by the ADA [ (Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

)) ],” because the ADA “defines ‘illegal drug use’ by reference to federal, rather than state, law, and federal law does not authorize the plaintiffs' medical marijuana use.” (James v. City of Costa Mesa (9th Cir. 2012) 700 F.3d 394, 397.)

With this background in mind, we turn to the complaint.

1. The Complaint

The complaint stated the intention to seek class certification of a class of patients and a class of collectives. The patient class members suffer from physical or mental disabilities

, serious illnesses or permanent injury that limits a major life activity; are, or were, members of medical marijuana patient collectives; and qualify for protection under federal and state laws applicable to persons with disabilities. Each member of the collective class is a nonprofit group consisting of member patients, or authorized caregivers of patients, who associate together to form the members of the collective class “for the purpose of mitigating their respective disabilities/conditions.”

The 43–page complaint includes numerous conclusions of fact and law that we do not, under principles of appellate review, assume to be true. The following summary includes the pertinent factual allegations.

The complaint recited facts concerning voter approval of the CUA in 1996 and the MMP in 2003; the city's passage on March 17, 2010 of an ordinance regulating medical marijuana patient collectives (Long Beach Mun. Code, former ch. 5.87) (hereafter chapter 5.87 or the March 2010 ordinance); comments by city officials stating their views on the ordinance and medical marijuana collectives; and the city's implementation, “between March 17, 2010 and June 1, 2010,” of a permit lottery and permit fee schedule requiring large application and annual permit fees.

Plaintiffs alleged that pharmacies, medical clinics, medical treatment programs, methadone

clinics and organic nutritional providers are “comparable uses” to medical marijuana collectives. The complaint alleges these comparable uses are not subject to various restrictions (such as location or spacing requirements); that various fees charged to the collectives were substantially higher than fees paid by comparable uses; and that additional taxes imposed on collectives in December 2010 were not charged to comparable uses.

The complaint described litigation initiated on August 30, 2010, that challenged the enforcement of chapter 5.87 on constitutional grounds. (This litigation culminated in an appellate decision, issued on October 4, 2011, holding that the permit provisions of chapter 5.87, including the fees and lottery system, were preempted by federal law, because those provisions authorized conduct that federal law forbids. The Supreme Court granted a petition for review, but later dismissed review as moot after the city repealed chapter 5.87 and replaced it with an ordinance imposing a complete ban on medical marijuana collectives within the city (chapter 5.89 or the February 2012 ban). (See Pack v. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1070, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 633

, review granted Jan. 18, 2012, S197169, review dismissed Aug. 22, 2012.))

Between August 2010 and October 5, 2011, defendants and other city and police officers issued “multiple administrative citations” to plaintiff class members, charging violations of chapter 5.87 and ordering them to pay fines. During the same period, city employees “contacted and threatened the landlords” of properties leased by class members and issued multiple administrative citations to the landlords; threatened class members “with citations, fines, arrest, and harassment” based on “discriminatory animus” toward medical marijuana patients or based on alleged violations of chapter 5.87; and “issued at least 150 criminal citations and charged patients with violation” of chapter 5.87.

The city has continued to enforce chapter 5.89 (the February 2012 ban) through “warrantless and/or improper raids” of the collective class members, “arrest, booking, and charging of patients,” “multiple citations,” “harassment” of patient class members based on chapter 5.89, and “seizure of property and medication.”

The complaint alleged that the enactment and enforcement of both chapter 5.87 and the February 2012 ban violated six statutes: Civil Code section 54

(the Disabled Persons Act or DPA); Civil Code section 51 (the Unruh Civil Rights Act or Unruh Act); the ADA; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794 ); Civil Code section 52.1 (the Bane Act); and the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983 ) (section 1983 ). As to those claims, the complaint further alleged as follows.

Before May 2, 2010, medical marijuana collectives opened in the city and operated “with a business license under various categories....” The city enacted chapter 5.87, requiring any existing collective to immediately cease operation, in violation of provisions protecting their “vested rights.” Chapter 5.87 made lawful businesses illegal without a hearing in violation of various enumerated federal and state constitutional rights.

Each of the members of the collective class applied for permits and complied with all requirements in chapter 5.87, but the city failed to notify any of them whether their applications had been approved or denied. Between May 2010 and October 2010, each of the collective class members established or reestablished leases, and expended money, executed contracts, and paid for improvements based on the express provisions of the ordinance.

The complaint alleged that in or after September...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Bunnett & Co. v. Gearheart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • February 27, 2018
    ...acts of the defendant. See Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1153 (2003); The Kind and Compassionate v. City of Long Beach, 2 Cal. App. 5th 116, 129 (2016); N. Am. Chem. Co. v. Super. Ct., 59 Cal. App. 4th 764, 786 (1997).4 Defendants argue that with respect to cu......
  • Laboratories v. Cnty. of San Diego
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 2020
    ...at p. 739.) There is no medical necessity exception under federal law. (City of Riverside, at pp. 738-739; The Kind & Compassionate v. City of Long Beach (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 116, 120; City of San Jose, at p. 848.) The federal law prohibitions are fully enforceable in California and are una......
  • Mann v. Gullickson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • November 2, 2016
    ...under specified state criminal and nuisance laws that would otherwise prohibit those activities." The Kind & Compassionate v. City of Long Beach, 2 Cal. App. 5th 116, 120 (2016) (quotations omitted; edits in original). Federal law, however, continues to prohibit marijuana, even by medical u......
  • Logtale, Ltd. v. Canton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • August 3, 2020
    ...claim where she had not adequately stated an underlying civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); The Kind & Compassionate v. City of Long Beach, 2 Cal. App. 5th 116, 130 (2016) (holding that the trial court properly sustained a demurrer to a civil conspiracy claims "because plaintiffs ha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Cannabis Regulation Is the New Frontier in Real Estate and Land Use Control
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Real Property Journal (CLA) No. 36-3, September 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...1534 (2013).82. City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba, 215 Cal.App.4th 1068 (2013).83. The Kind & Compassionate v. City of Long Beach, 2 Cal. App.5th 116 (2016).84. City of Palm Springs v. Luna Crest, Inc., 245 Cal.App.4th 879 (2016).85. Ye set al v. City of San Bernardino, (Superior Court of San......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT