County of Los Angeles v. Hill
192 Cal. App. 4th 861
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act) allows medical marijuana use with physician recommendation and limits state criminal liability for patients and caregivers.
- Medical Marijuana Program Act (2003) authorizes local regulation consistent with the Compassionate Use Act and aims for uniformity across counties.
- Los Angeles County adopted 2006 ordinances regulating medical marijuana dispensaries (MMDs), requiring CUPs, adherence to zoning, 1,000-foot school buffers, and business licenses.
- County filed a nuisance action seeking injunctions against defendants for operating an MMD without licenses, CUPs, or required variances in unincorporated LA County.
- Defendants challenged the ordinances as preempted by state law, inconsistent with state law, and unconstitutional under equal protection; trial court granted TRO and preliminary injunction.
- During appeal, California enacted section 11362.768 (2011) recognizing local regulation of dispensaries with location restrictions, including a 600-foot school buffer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state law fully preempts local MMD regulation | Hill/defendants claim full field preemption by the act. | Act preempts local ordinances regulating MMDs. | No total preemption; local regulation allowed if consistent with state act. |
| Whether the County's MMD regulations are facially and as-applied consistent with state law | Regulations are inconsistent with the Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program. | Regulations are consistent; further restrict locations as allowed. | Facial and applied consistency upheld; ordinances may be stricter if consistent with statute. |
| Whether the County may use nuisance and zoning laws to regulate MMDs beyond 600 feet of a school | Conflicting provisions and immunity under 11362.775 prevent nuisance enforcement. | Nuisance and zoning remain valid to regulate location and operation. | County may enforce nuisance laws consistent with statutes; immunity not absolute against nuisance abatement. |
| Is the differential treatment of MMDs versus pharmacies under equal protection constitutional | Disparate treatment violates equal protection. | MMDs pose distinct public health and safety risks; rational basis supports different zoning. | Rational basis; MMDs are not similarly situated to pharmacies for public safety reasons. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Claremont v. Kruse, 177 Cal.App.4th 1153 (2009) (local regulation not preempted when not occupying field already governed by state)
- City of Corona v. Naulls, 166 Cal.App.4th 418 (2008) (de novo review on preemption and injunction standards; balance of harms )
- Purdy & Fitzpatrick v. State of California, 71 Cal.2d 566 (1969) (equal protection considerations in public policy analysis)
- Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc., 42 Cal.4th 920 (2008) (federal status of marijuana notwithstanding; state law context)
- Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim, 187 Cal.App.4th 734 (2010) (premises legality and nuisance / quasi-criminal considerations)