White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County
241 Ariz. 230
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2012 White Mountain Health Center applied to ADHS for a medical marijuana dispensary (MMD) registration for CHAA 49 but lacked county zoning verification; ADHS would have issued the certificate but for that missing local documentation.
- Maricopa County adopted successive zoning amendments: the First Text Amendment permitted MMDs in certain commercial zones with a "poison pill"; the Second Text Amendment confined MMDs to IND-3 zones and barred uses in conflict with federal law (no IND-3 in CHAA 49); the County later adopted a Third Text Amendment after litigation.
- The County Attorney advised county staff not to process MMD applications citing potential federal criminal exposure under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA); the County refused to provide the zoning verification form required by ADHS.
- White Mountain sued County and ADHS seeking declaratory relief, injunction, and mandamus to require issuance of the zoning verification and processing of its ADHS application; the superior court granted partial summary judgment and mandamus ordering the County to provide zoning verification and ADHS to process the application.
- The County and State appealed on federal preemption and zoning grounds; the superior court also struck the Second Text Amendment as applied to MMDs and awarded White Mountain attorney fees and a $5,000 sanction under A.R.S. § 12-349 (the sanction was later reversed on appeal).
Issues
| Issue | White Mountain's Argument | County/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal Controlled Substances Act preempts the AMMA so as to bar state or county actions required to enable MMDs (zoning verification and ADHS processing) | AMMA-compliant state and local actions (zoning verification; ADHS processing) are lawful under Arizona law and not preempted | CSA either (a) creates an obstacle to federal objectives (obstacle preemption) or (b) makes compliance impossible because county employees would risk federal prosecution or aiding/abetting (impossibility preemption) | Court: CSA does not preempt the AMMA for the limited actions here; Reed‑Kaliher and related precedent show AMMA creates state-law immunities, not an obstacle or impossibility to federal enforcement; preemption not shown. |
| Whether the County's Second Text Amendment (poison-pill barring conduct in violation of federal law; limiting MMDs to IND‑3) is valid under AMMA | White Mountain: the poison‑pill effectively bans MMDs contrary to AMMA’s grant allowing counties to adopt "reasonable zoning" limiting MMDs to specified areas | County: amendment is a valid exercise of zoning authority and reasonable restriction; permissive MCZO means non-listed uses are prohibited | Court: struck the Second Text Amendment as applied to MMDs because banning AMMA‑compliant MMDs conflicts with AMMA’s grant of limited zoning authority; poison‑pill invalid as applied. |
| Whether superior court could issue mandamus compelling the County to provide zoning verification despite County Attorney advice | White Mountain: County’s refusal to perform a non‑discretionary ministerial duty (issuing zoning verification) is subject to mandamus | County: mandamus impermissible to compel change in County Attorney’s legal advice; advice is discretionary and immune | Court: mandamus proper as the County’s ministerial duty was refused; County Attorney advice does not immunize the County from judicial relief. |
| Whether sanctions under A.R.S. § 12‑349 were warranted against the County for defending the zoning amendment and preemption positions | White Mountain: County unreasonably expanded/delayed proceedings and defended without substantial justification after adverse preemption ruling | County: position was reasonable and made in good faith; no bad faith or groundless defense | Court: affirmed fee awards but reversed the $5,000 § 12‑349 sanction—County’s defenses were not shown to be groundless or made in bad faith. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed‑Kaliher v. Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119 (Ariz. 2015) (state AMMA immunity does not create obstacle preemption to the CSA)
- Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 495 Mich. 1 (Mich. 2014) (Michigan medical‑marijuana scheme and local ordinance conflict; state law not preempted by CSA)
- County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, 165 Cal.App.4th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (state medical‑marijuana identification/registration scheme not preempted by CSA)
- United States v. Rosenthal, 454 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2006) (state/local officials enforcing state medical‑marijuana statutes can be entitled to immunity under 21 U.S.C. § 885(d))
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (U.S. 2009) (preemption analysis requires a demanding showing; courts reluctant to find preemption when state law addresses traditional state powers)