Santa Barbara Patients' Collective Health Cooperative v. City of Santa Barbara
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169830
| C.D. Cal. | 2012Background
- SBPCHC operated a medical marijuana dispensary in Santa Barbara under a valid Dispensary Use Permit obtained in 2008.
- Ordinance 5449 was amended by the City’s Revised Ordinance 5226 in 2010, changing permissible locations and requiring compliance within 180 days.
- Plaintiff filed a §1983 action in 2010 challenging the Revised Ordinance; the court issued a Preliminary Injunction in November 2010 prohibiting enforcement against SBPCHC.
- In 2011 the City adopted an Amendment extending amortization for existing dispensaries to four years.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Preliminary Injunction and remanded to address the Amended Ordinance, noting the extended amortization period.
- The Revised/Amended Ordinance limited the number of dispensaries in Santa Barbara to three, already affecting SBPCHC’s operations and timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness and nominal damages viability | SBPCHC can pursue nominal damages for rights violations despite mootness. | Closure under federal law renders the action moot for most relief. | Nominal damages claims survive; some causes remain live while others are moot. |
| Vested rights and due process under the Revised Ordinance | SBPCHC had a vested right in its permit and due process was violated by amortization. | Amortization and public health objectives justified the ordinance. | First and Second Causes survive; the vested-right and due-process claims are viable. |
| Equal protection challenge to the Amended Ordinance | Selective treatment and enforcement show arbitrary bias against SBPCHC. | Zoning restrictions on dispensaries have legitimate nondiscriminatory purposes. | Third Cause of Action is dismissed. |
| Regulatory taking and ex post facto arguments | Ownership rights vest and the revised ordinance could constitute a taking or retroactive punishment. | Taking and ex post facto claims do not apply or are not ripe. | Fourth Cause (takings) is dismissed as moot; Sixth Cause (ex post facto) is granted. |
| Writ of mandate claims (Seventh and Eighth Causes) | Plaintiff may seek to overturn the ordinance or compel action; some relief not barred by federal law. | Federal enforcement prevents meaningful relief and actions are moot. | Seventh and Eighth Causes are granted as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must show plausible claims, not mere conclusory statements)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading facts in a complaint)
- Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 2002) (nominal damages can sustain live claims under §1983)
- World Wide Video of Washington v. City of Spokane, 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004) (amortization periods must be reasonable and feasible)
- City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 531 U.S. 278 (U.S. 2001) (mootness inquiry when prospective licensing remains uncertain)
- City of Erie v. Pap’s AM., 529 U.S. 277, 529 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2000) (ripe reconsideration of regulatory actions remains possible)
- Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (ripeness doctrine for takings claims)
- Spoklie v. Montana, 411 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2005) (ex post facto and regulatory changes discussed in context)
- Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Dist., 226 P.3d 985 (Cal. 2010) (vested rights doctrine and reliance on permits)