Conejo Wellness Center, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills
214 Cal. App. 4th 1534
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Conejo Wellness Center operated in Agoura Hills as a nonprofit medical marijuana cooperative distributing to members since 2006.
- Ordinance No. 08-355 (2008) expressly bans medical marijuana dispensaries in Agoura Hills.
- Ordinance No. 10-379 (2010) adds licensing, zoning, and enforcement provisions, including a prohibition on compensation for dispensaries and treating dispensaries as nonpermitted uses.
- Conejo challenged the ordinances as preempted by the CUA and MMPA, as well as due process, privacy, and ex post facto/colorable takings theories.
- Agoura moved for summary judgment/adjudication; the trial court granted judgment against Conejo and issued a broad injunction against Conejo’s distribution activities in Agoura.
- On appeal, the court rejected Conejo’s preemption, due process, and privacy challenges and affirmed the injunction and judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 10-379 is a zoning ordinance subject to Gov. Code § 65853. | Conejo: 10-379 modifies zoning or is an amendment to 08-355. | Agoura: 10-379 is licensing/permits, not a zoning amendment; §65853 inapplicable. | §65853 does not apply to 10-379. |
| Whether the CUA or MMPA preempts the Agoura ordinances. | CUA/MMPA create a right to collective cultivation/distribution; local bans conflict. | CUA/MMPA provide limited defenses, do not preempt local bans; not a full occupancy of field. | No preemption by either statute. |
| Whether the ordinances violate substantive or procedural due process. | 10-379 deprives Conejo of vested rights to operate; procedural defects in permitting. | No vested right since use was unlawful before 10-379; procedures followed; any errors harmless. | No substantive or procedural due process violation. |
| Whether the ban infringes the members’ right to privacy or association. | Disallowing operations intrudes on intimate association/privacy of members. | Ordinances regulate a business, not privacy/association rights of members. | No violation of privacy or association rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Claremont v. Kruse, 177 Cal.App.4th 1153 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (CUA/MMPA do not create broad rights; local regulation permissible)
- Mentch v. City of Santa Ana, 45 Cal.4th 274 (Cal. 2008) (immunity under MMPA limited to described offenses; not blanket preemption)
- Hill v. NCAA, 7 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (privacy/liberty interests and the scope of procedural due process)
- Nordyke v. King, 27 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2002) (local regulation of generally allowed activities; preemption not compelled)
- Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.4th 893 (Cal. 1993) (local regulation vs. state occupancy of field; preemption framework)