420 Caregivers, LLC v. City of Los Angeles
219 Cal. App. 4th 1316
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- City of Los Angeles enacted Ordinance 181,069 to regulate medical marijuana collectives and related activities within City limits.
- ICO (Interim Control) 179,027 (2007) barred new dispensaries, with a limited pre-existing-dispenser exemption and renewal extensions.
- Ordinance creates a 70-collective cap, requires registration, and distributes collectives by neighborhood density; sunset after two years absent extension.
- Prior to the Ordinance, 16+ public hearings showed crime concerns, diversion of marijuana, and law-enforcement resource strains.
- Collectives filed suits seeking to enjoin enforcement; trial court issued partial preliminary injunctions on equal protection, preemption, due process, and privacy grounds.
- Appellate court reversed the injunctions, holding the Ordinance facially valid under rational-basis review and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection facial challenge | Ordinance arbitrary for enforcing ICO-era registration as cutoff. | Grandfather-style classification with rational basis reflects legitimate policy. | Ordinance constitutional on facial equal protection grounds under rational basis. |
| Preemption by state law (MMPA) | Sunset/penalties and registration conflict with MMPA immunities. | Ordinance operates within local regulation powers and MMPA immunities remain unaffected. | Court did not reach merits on preemption issue; decision focused on equal protection and other claims, remanding for further proceedings. |
| Due process (procedural) | Immediate cessation for non-ICO registrants without hearings violates due process. | MMPA does not create a statutory right to cultivate; enforcement follows standard procedures; May 4 letter is advisory. | No due process violation; enforcement requires formal actions with full adversarial procedures. |
| Right to privacy | Recordkeeping and broad disclosure to police invade privacy interests of collectives and members. | Privacy expectations are limited; closely regulated business intrusions justified by public interest. | No privacy violation; disclosures limited, nonintimate, and justified by state interests; no overbreadth concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (U.S. 1976) (grandfather provisions may be rationally justified in local economic regulation)
- Martinet v. Dept. of Fish & Game, 203 Cal.App.3d 791 (Cal. App. 1988) (economic regulation with nonuniform classifications upheld if rational basis exists)
- FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1993) (statutory classifications receive rational-basis deference)
- Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 177 Cal.App.4th 837 (Cal. App. 2009) (equal protection scrutiny with rational basis in non-suspect classifications)
- Guardianship of Ann S., 45 Cal.4th 1110 (Cal. 2009) (facially challenging statutes require heavy burden; two-test approach for facial challenges)
- Zuckerman v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 29 Cal.4th 32 (Cal. 2002) (standard for facial challenge and due process considerations)
- Coffman Specialties, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 176 Cal.App.4th 1135 (Cal. App. 2009) (application of rational-basis review to regulatory classifications)
- Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill, 197 Cal.App.4th 1526 (Cal. App. 2011) (face/applicability of rational-basis review when facts not in dispute)
- Lusardi Construction Co. v. Aubry, 1 Cal.4th 976 (Cal. 1992) (due process limitations on administrative decisions; prosecutorial authority; evidence-based action)