People Ex Rel. Feuer v. FXS Management, Inc.
206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 819
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2014 defendants opened "Weedland," a members-only medical marijuana collective in Los Angeles; undercover officers purchased marijuana there in Feb. 2015.
- The City (People) sued under Proposition D (Los Angeles Municipal Code §45.19.6.*), which makes it unlawful to operate a "medical marijuana business," defined as any location where marijuana is distributed, delivered, or given away to qualifying patients or ID card holders.
- Defendants contended Weedland was a non-profit "collective" limited to members, not a "business," and thus outside Proposition D.
- The trial court found Proposition D applied to collectives like Weedland, granted a preliminary injunction enjoining Weedland’s operation, and defendants appealed.
- On review the court applied de novo statutory interpretation and the deferential public-entity preliminary-injunction standard (presumption that public interest outweighs private harm if likelihood of success shown).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proposition D’s definition of "medical marijuana business" covers a members-only collective | Proposition D defines a medical marijuana business broadly as any location where marijuana is distributed, delivered, or given away to qualifying patients; Weedland meets that definition | A "collective" that distributes only to members is not a "business" and thus not regulated by Proposition D; collectives are distinct and unmentioned in Proposition D | Proposition D’s plain text covers any location that distributes or delivers marijuana to qualifying patients, so Weedland is a medical marijuana business and subject to Proposition D |
| Whether the People demonstrated likelihood of prevailing to justify a preliminary injunction | The People showed Weedland distributed marijuana to ID-holders, satisfying the ordinance’s definition and making success on the merits likely | Defendants argued ambiguous ordinance, lack of evidence of public harm, and reliance interests of ~2,300 members causing irreparable medical harm | Court held the People likely to prevail; presumption of public harm applies; defendants failed to show grave or irreparable harm to rebut presumption |
| Whether the injunction violated defendants’ constitutional rights (speech/association) | Injunction targets location-based distribution of marijuana, not speech or private association; Proposition D does not bar informational activity | Injunction prevents on-site distribution and some signage, allegedly infringing speech and association rights | Court held the injunction did not meaningfully restrict speech or association beyond barring a location used to distribute marijuana; no constitutional violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc., 56 Cal.4th 729 (2013) (municipalities may declare on-site distribution of medical marijuana a nuisance and abate it)
- IT Corp. v. County of Imperial, 35 Cal.3d 63 (1983) (when government likely to prevail enforcing an ordinance, presumption that public interest outweighs private harm applies)
- White v. Davis, 30 Cal.4th 528 (2003) (preliminary injunction requires likelihood of success and balancing of harms)
- Nestdrop, LLC, 245 Cal.App.4th 664 (2016) (de novo review for interpretation of local ordinance defining medical marijuana business)
- Safe Life Caregivers v. City of Los Angeles, 243 Cal.App.4th 1029 (2016) (discussing Proposition D’s regulatory scheme for medical marijuana businesses)