People v. CHR Herbal Remedies
JAD17-05
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Defendants CHR Herbal Remedies (California Herbal Remedies, Inc.) and Orlando Yepes operated a medical marijuana business (MMB) at 1343 N. Highland Ave., Los Angeles.
- The City charged defendants with four misdemeanor counts for operating an unlawful MMB under L.A. Mun. Code § 45.19.6.2.
- Defendants conceded their MMB was 880 feet from Hollywood High School and 550 feet from the Little Red Schoolhouse child care facility—i.e., inside the ordinance’s 1,000-ft and 600-ft exclusion zones.
- Defendants sought to present an affirmative defense of limited immunity under LAMC § 45.19.6.3, arguing they substantially complied with the distance requirements and met other registration criteria (operation since 2007, etc.).
- The trial court excluded the substantial-compliance defense as to the distance rules; defendants stipulated to the facts, were found guilty, and placed on probation.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the ordinance’s distance restrictions require strict compliance and substantial compliance cannot supply immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants may assert limited-immunity defense based on substantial compliance with LAMC § 45.19.6.3(O) distance requirements | The City: immunity is available only when the ordinance’s listed restrictions are strictly met; no substantial-compliance exception | Defendants: although not strictly within distances, they substantially complied (were only hundreds of feet off) and satisfied other immunity conditions, so they should get immunity | Court: held strict compliance required; substantial compliance inapplicable to distance restrictions; immunity unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp., 33 Cal.4th 601 (2004) (plain statutory language can defeat a substantial-compliance claim)
- Trinity Holistic Caregivers, Inc., 239 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9 (2015) (ordinance aimed to freeze 2007 status of MMBs; strict proof of registration requirements required)
- Onesra Enterprises, Inc., 7 Cal.App.5th Supp. 7 (2016) (substantial compliance inapplicable to registration requirements because it would frustrate ordinance’s purpose)
- People v. Smith, 8 Cal.App.5th 977 (2017) (interpretation of ordinance follows ordinary rules of statutory construction focusing on text)
- People v. McGowan, 242 Cal.App.4th 377 (2015) (standard of de novo review for legal questions based on undisputed facts)