Maral v. City of Live Oak
221 Cal. App. 4th 975
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- In December 2011 the City of Live Oak adopted Ordinance No. 538, adding LOMC ch. 17.17 to prohibit all marijuana cultivation and to ban collectives, cooperatives, and dispensaries within the city limits.
- The City found cultivation posed public-safety, property, and nuisance risks and noted federal illegality and the limited scope of California’s medical-marijuana statutes.
- Section 17.17.040 flatly prohibited cultivation by anyone, including qualified patients and caregivers; other sections declared violations public nuisances and set conditional criteria if the prohibition were invalidated.
- Plaintiffs (patients, a trustee, and an association) sued to enjoin enforcement, alleging violations of the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP), equal protection, and due process.
- The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the second amended complaint; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CUA/MMP preempt a municipal ban on cultivation | Maral: CUA and MMP create a right to obtain and cultivate medical marijuana, so the Ordinance conflicts with state law | Live Oak: CUA/MMP only provide limited immunities and do not create a right to cultivate or preempt local regulation | Court: CUA and MMP do not create a broad right and do not preempt the City’s power to prohibit cultivation (affirmed) |
| Whether plaintiffs stated an equal protection claim | Maral: Ordinance irrationally deprives medical patients (a disabled class) of cultivation rights | Live Oak: No protected right exists; ordinance has rational basis tied to public safety | Court: No protected right to cultivate; claim fails as pleaded |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a due process claim | Maral: Ordinance deprives constitutionally protected liberty/property rights to cultivate/use in the home and alleged procedural irregularities | Live Oak: No fundamental right implicated; procedural complaints are undeveloped and insufficient | Court: No fundamental right established; procedural/due process assertions inadequately developed and rejected |
| Whether the complaint survived demurrer | Maral: Complaint states causes of action under CUA, MMP, equal protection, due process | Live Oak: Complaint fails to state viable causes because statutes confer limited defenses only | Court: Demurrer properly sustained without leave to amend; complaint fails to state a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Ctr., 56 Cal.4th 729 (Cal. 2013) (CUA and MMP have limited scope and do not preempt local bans on medical-marijuana facilities)
- People v. Mower, 28 Cal.4th 457 (Cal. 2002) (CUA provides limited immunity from prosecution, not a broad right)
- Mentch v. People, 45 Cal.4th 274 (Cal. 2008) (MMP immunities are limited and statutory definitions are not to be judicially expanded)
- Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc., 42 Cal.4th 920 (Cal. 2008) (CUA’s immunity provisions have narrow reach and do not create workplace accommodation rights)
- Browne v. County of Tehama, 213 Cal.App.4th 704 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (upholding ordinance regulating cultivation; CUA and MMP do not grant unfettered cultivation rights)