2017 WL 2544590
Cal. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Defendants CHR Herbal Remedies and Orlando Yepes were charged with four misdemeanor counts for operating a medical marijuana business (MMB) in violation of L.A. Mun. Code § 45.19.6.2(A).
- Defendants’ MMB at 1343 North Highland Avenue was stipulated to be 880 feet from Hollywood High School and 550 feet from the Little Red Schoolhouse child care facility, violating the distance limits in LAMC § 45.19.6.3(O) (1,000 ft for schools; 600 ft for child care facilities).
- Defendants argued they should be allowed to present an affirmative defense that they substantially complied with the ordinance’s immunity requirements because they met many other registration/tax prerequisites and were only a few hundred feet short of the distance limits.
- The trial court denied the motions to present a substantial-compliance defense as to the distance rules, defendants waived jury, stipulated to the facts, were found guilty, and placed on probation with sentence suspended.
- On appeal the court reviewed de novo whether substantial compliance could excuse noncompliance with the ordinance’s distance restrictions and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial compliance can satisfy LAMC §45.19.6.3(O) distance requirements for immunity | City: ordinance text is mandatory; immunity available only if all listed restrictions are satisfied | Defendants: they substantially complied and thus should be eligible for immunity despite being within the specified distances | Substantial compliance does not apply; strict compliance with the distance provisions is required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McGowan, 242 Cal.App.4th 377 (de novo review applies to legal questions based on undisputed facts)
- People v. Urziceanu, 132 Cal.App.4th 747 (definition and limits of substantial compliance)
- Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp., 33 Cal.4th 601 (plain statutory language can defeat substantial compliance claim)
- People v. Carroll, 222 Cal.App.4th 1406 (substantial compliance may suffice only if statute's purpose still served)
- People v. Trinity Holistic Caregivers, Inc., 239 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9 (substantial compliance inapplicable to critical registration requirement; ordinance intended to freeze MMB status)
- People v. Smith, 8 Cal.App.5th 977 (interpretation focuses on statutory text)
- Lyles v. Sangadeo-Patel, 225 Cal.App.4th 759 (statutory interpretation rules apply to ordinances)
- People v. Johnson, 242 Cal.App.4th 1155 (legislative purpose and evils to be remedied are relevant to interpretation)
- People v. Onesra Enterprises, Inc., 7 Cal.App.5th Supp. 7 (substantial compliance would defeat ordinance purpose regarding registration limits)
- People v. West Valley Caregivers, Inc., 242 Cal.App.4th Supp. 24 (burden on defendant to prove all ordinance requirements for immunity)