City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc.
56 Cal. 4th 729
Cal.2013Background
- California law creates narrow exemptions (CUA and MMP) to state criminal/nuisance penalties for medical marijuana activities, but does not preempt local land use regulation.
- Riverside adopted zoning ordinances prohibiting a medical marijuana dispensary and declaring such uses nuisances abatable by local action.
- Inland Empire and related defendants operated a medical marijuana distribution facility in Riverside; the city sought injunctive relief to abate as a nuisance.
- Trial court granted a preliminary injunction; Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting preemption of Riverside’s ban by state statutes.
- Court acknowledges federal CSA remains in force but held state exemptions do not authorize local bans; localities retain land use control.
- Conclusion: Riverside’s ban is not preempted by the CUA or MMP; local regulation of land use may prohibit these facilities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CUA or MMP preempt Riverside’s total ban on facilities? | Inland Empire argues state laws authorize broad access and occupancy nationwide. | Riverside argues state statutes do not preempt local zoning prohibitions. | Not preempted; local land use power stands. |
| Is there implied preemption of Riverside's ban by CUA/MMP? | CUA/MMP promote access and might preempt bans on dispensaries. | No implied field occupation; statutes are narrow and do not occupy land-use. | No implied preemption; local regulation allowed. |
| Do CUA/MMP restrict local zoning and nuisance control over medical marijuana facilities? | State laws encourage regulation but not bans. | Local regulation may prohibit or restrict such uses. | Local regulation not precluded; municipalities may prohibit or regulate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kruse v. City of Claremont, 177 Cal.App.4th 1153 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (CUA/MMP do not preempt local zoning/ban of medical marijuana facilities)
- Hill v. County of Santa Clara, 192 Cal.App.4th 861 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (local regulation can regulate location of facilities consistent with MMP)
- Mentch v. People, 45 Cal.4th 274 (Cal. 2008) (MMP immunities are specific and do not grant broad defense to all conduct)
- Urziceanu v. State, 132 Cal.App.4th 747 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (limited immunities under MMP depend on specific conduct)
- Nordyke v. King, 27 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2002) (state law exemptions do not automatically authorize local action;)
- O’Connell v. Stockton, 41 Cal.4th 1061 (Cal. 2007) (field occupancy analysis; preemption not inferred from partial occupation)
- Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 853 (Cal. 2002) (state promotion of activity does not preclude local ban when no occupancy of field)
- Cohen v. Board of Supervisors, 40 Cal.3d 277 (Cal. 1985) (local regulation permissible if not conflicting with state statute)