The People v. Super. Ct. (Cardillo)
160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 264
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Investigation began January 2010 of Kush Dr., a medical marijuana clinic with Venice locations at 1313 and 1811 Ocean Front Walk after a complaint of illegal operations.
- Cardillo is listed as agent for service for Kush Dr., LLC and is CEO of two other entities at the 1811 location; ownership later shown as 50/50 with Cettei.
- Investigators met with physicians who treated patients and issued medical marijuana recommendations; Thisei controlled hours and paid physicians a share of proceeds.
- Clinics showed minimal exam facilities; rooms were small, lacked exam tables, and only one location had running water; lease and control documents indicated Cettei’s control over the practice.
- Undercover agents received minimal exams and doctors issued recommendations; Cetai settled disputes over fees and physicians’ compensation was tied to the clinic’s profits.
- The trial court dismissed the 2052 charge; the writ of mandate was sought to challenge the dismissal and reinstate the count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2052 applies to unlicensed owners who operate a clinic | Cardillo argues owners are covered via operating for the cure | Cetai argues 2052 targets active treatment by licensed individuals | Yes, owners may be charged under 2052. |
| Whether case law on aiding unlicensed practice applies to criminal context | Cardillo relies on Painless Parker/Steinsmith | Cardillo distinguishes criminal from disciplinary contexts | Criminal liability under 2052 is valid. |
| Scope of 'operates for' in 2052 | DA contends it includes running medical clinics | Defense disputes broad application | 'Operates for' extends to running a clinic for treating sick. |
| Effect of not personally examining patients on liability | Ownership and control suffice for liability | No personal examinations absolve liability | Ownership/control can support liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Painless Parker v. Board of Dental Exam., 216 Cal. 285 (Cal. 1932) (corporate control of practice held liable for unlicensed activity)
- Steinsmith v. Medical Bd., 85 Cal.App.4th 458 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (co-owners’ administrative role may implicate practicing medicine)
- Rideout v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.2d 471 (Cal. 1967) (information not to be set aside if offense reasonably possible)
- Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 619 (Cal. 1970) (fair warning requirement for criminal statutes)