Orange County Superior Court Ruling Database - Consumer-justice ...

1 st COA – Preemption: This claim alleges that theCity’s ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensariesis pre-empted by state law, or namely, the CUA andMMP. However, as already discussed above, this claimfails in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling. Thedemurrer to this cause of action is sustained without leaveto amend.2 nd COA – Violation of Due Process: This claimalleges a violation of due process because Cross-Complainants cannot function as a business without abusiness license, which the City refuses to issue becauseReleaf is a medical marijuana dispensary. Again, thiscause of action fails since the City is not pre-empted fromenacting ordinances that outright ban medical marijuanadispensaries. The demurrer to this cause of action issustained without leave to amend.3 rd COA – Violation of Civ. Code §55: This statutemerely allows an aggrieved or potentially aggrievedperson to seek an injunction based on a violation of Civ.Code §54 or 54.1.Civ. Code §54 states, in pertinent part: “(a)Individuals with disabilities or medical conditions have thesame right as the general public to the full and free use ofthe streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, publicbuildings, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics,and physicians' offices, public facilities, and other publicplaces. [] (c) A violation of the right of an individualunder the [ADA ] also constitutes a violation of thissection.”Additionally, “Individuals with disabilities shall beentitled to full and equal access, as other members of thegeneral public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities,medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics, andphysicians' offices, and privileges of all common carriers,airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains, motorbuses,streetcars, boats, or any other public conveyances ormodes of transportation ... telephone facilities, adoptionagencies, private schools, hotels, lodging places, places ofpublic accommodation, amusement, or resort, and otherplaces to which the general public is invited, subject onlyto the conditions and limitations established by law, orstate or federal regulation, and applicable alike to allpersons.” Civ. Code §54.1(a).To the extent Cross-Complainants claim the banamounts to discrimination under the ADA, “Congress hasdetermined that, for purposes of federal law, marijuana isunacceptable for medical use.” James v. City of CostaMesa (9 th Cir. 2012) 700 F.3d 394, 403. Therefore, theargument relating to the ADA fails.As for Civ. Code §§54 and 54.1, the City ordinancebans all medical marijuana dispensaries and does not limitwho may or may not access a dispensary based upondisability. There is no discriminatory conduct alleged byCross-Complainants. They argue that the ban of alldispensaries is discriminatory to disabled persons who