People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Nestdrop, LLC
199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 871
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- People sue Nestdrop for violating Prop. D by facilitating medical marijuana delivery; injunction sought and granted.
- Nestdrop founders Pycher and Radnia formed Nestdrop in 2013; app first delivered alcohol, then expanded to medical marijuana within Los Angeles.
- Delivery is conducted via partner MM businesses; Nestdrop allegedly delivered or facilitated delivery of marijuana.
- Prop. D prohibits medical marijuana businesses from owning/operating, or participating in, any delivery by vehicle except narrow caregiver exemptions.
- Trial court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Nestdrop from developing or marketing any app that facilitates marijuana delivery in LA.
- Appellate court reviews de novo the statute/ordinance interpretation and affirms the injunction; opinion partially published.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Prop. D prohibit vehicle delivery of medical marijuana by immune businesses? | Prop. D bans vehicular delivery; immunity limited to fixed locations. | Delivery by vehicle should be permitted under immunity to the extent tied to the business. | Prop. D generally bans vehicle delivery; immunities attach only to fixed locations. |
| Is the vehicle-delivery interpretation preempted by Vehicle Code sections 21 and 22455? | No preemption; Prop. D operates within local regulation of medical marijuana. | Vehicle Code preempts substantive restrictions on vehicle delivery by municipalities. | Preemption argument forfeited; Court declines to decide merits; no conflict with Vehicle Code noted. |
| Does the ballot pamphlet summary alter the plain reading of Prop. D? | Pamphlet suggests authorization of vehicle delivery; voters relied on that view. | Pamphlet language is not controlling where text is unambiguous. | Ballot materials do not alter the clear text; Prop. D bans vehicular delivery except caregiver scenario. |
| Did Prop. D’s structure require treating vehicles as separate immunized entities? | Vehicles could be immunized as part of the overall medical marijuana business. | Text treats vehicles as separate medical marijuana businesses; immunity not available to vehicles. | Vehicles are separate from fixed locations; immunity does not apply to vehicle deliveries. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wright, 40 Cal.4th 81 (Cal. 2006) (Compassionate Use Act and protections for medical marijuana.)
- City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc., 56 Cal.4th 729 (Cal. 2013) (State medical marijuana regulation and local police powers.)
- 420 Caregivers, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 219 Cal.App.4th 1316 (Cal. App. 2012) (Local regulation of medical marijuana and related immunities.)
- Efstratis v. First Northern Bank, 59 Cal.App.4th 667 (Cal. App. 1997) (De novo review when legal questions underpin injunctions.)
- Evangelatos v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.3d 1188 (Cal. 1988) (Standard of review for appellate correction of trial court's injunctions.)
- DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc., 2 Cal.4th 593 (Cal. 1992) (Ballot measures and construction of initiative measures.)
- Board of Supervisors v. Lonergan, 27 Cal.3d 855 (Cal. 1980) (Judicial interpretation of local government ordinances.)
- Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Ass’n v. Garner, 216 Cal.App.4th 402 (Cal. App. 2013) (Use of ballot summaries in interpreting measures.)