Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ruling on Nevada County MMJ Ordinance

Ruling on Nevada County MMJ Ordinance

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,163|Likes:
Published by YubaNet
Nevada County Superior Court granted a partial injunction barring the County from preventing collectives from growing marijuana for medical purposes
Nevada County Superior Court granted a partial injunction barring the County from preventing collectives from growing marijuana for medical purposes

More info:

Published by: YubaNet on Jul 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/26/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1
2
3
4
5
6
789
10
11
12
13
14
FILED
Super
State
of
Ca
iforniaCounty
of
Nevada
IN
THE
SUPERIOR COURT
OFTHE
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIAIN
AND
FOR THE
COUNTY
OF
NEVADAAMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS NEVADACOUNTY CHAPTER,
et ai,Plaintiffs,
vs.CASE NO.: 78691RULING ON ORDER TO SHOWCAUSERE: PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION
15
De endants,
I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ 
COUNTY OF NEVADA,
et ai,
16
17
181920
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the enforcement
of
Defendant'snewly enacted urgency measure (Nevada County Ordinance No. 2349) regulating certainaspects
of
the cultivation
of
marijuana. The matter having been argued and submitted, theCourt rules as follows:First, it bears repeating the Court recognizes that plaintiffs suffer various illnesses, andthat their request for relief implicates not only their right to live comfortably, but also theirbasic human dignity. The Court also acknowledges that California recognizes marijuana as aneffective treatment for individuals like the plaintiffs.Secondly, the Court observes that lawsuits typically address conflict arising fromcompeting interests. This litigation is no different. By democratic process, the cultivation,possession and use
of
medical marijuana has been sanctioned, supported and immunized fromstate criminal prosecution. The same democratic process created a system
of
government by
 
1 which the Nevada County Board
of
Supervisors has been vested with the authority
to
enact2 regulations and the responsibility
to
protect the health, safety and welfare
of
the general3 public. Nevada County Ordinance No. 2349 acknowledges medical marijuana
as
a lawful4 right under state law, but also identifies numerous competing public interests, including5 protection
of
the public from serious crime, protection
of
minors, and the protection of6 property owners in the peaceful enjoyment
of
their property, free
of
odors associated with7 medical marijuana cultivation. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that the ordinance8 impinges on state guaranteed rights under the Compassionate Use Act, Medical Marijuana9 Program and companion legislation. Therein the issues are joined.10 Thirdly, the Court affirms that it is the rule
of
law that governs court decision making.11 In every civil and criminal jury trial, judges instruct jurors that "You must follow the law .... "12 and "You must not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision."13 CACI Jury Instruction #5000; CalCrim Jury Instruction #200. These two fundamental14 principles
of
our justice system apply equally
to
judges sitting without a jury.15 For the reasons state below, the Court grants the Preliminary Injunction in part
and
16 denies it in part.17
1.
To the extent that Ordinance #2349, Section G-IV 5.4 (C) and (D) prevents
two
or18 more individuals from different residences, or two or more primary caregivers from different19 residences, or any combination
of
individuals and primary caregivers from different20 residences, from cultivating marijuana collectively on a single legal parcel, and in conformity21 with the conditions and limitations otherwise required by the ordinance, County may not22 enforce the ordinance.
1
23
2.In
all other respects, the request for Preliminary Injunction is denied.
2425
26
27
1
This point
is
conceded
by
Connty. Connty's Supplemental Brieffiled May
29,2012,
page 2, lines 16-19.
28
2
 
1 PLAINTIFFS
2 Plaintiff Patricia Smith is the president
of
Plaintiff Grassroots Solutions (Grassroots), a3 California non-profit mutual benefit corporation based in Hollywood, California, formed for4 the purpose
of
facilitating the collective cultivation
of
medical marijuana for its 15 member5 patients who have serious and/or debilitating medical conditions. Members depend on6 Grassroots to supply them regularly and
"on
time" with their medical marijuana.7 Ms. Smith is also the president
of
the Nevada County Chapter
of
Plaintiff Americans8 for Safe Access (ASA), an association
of
over 250 medical marijuana patients and primary9 caregivers, some
of
whom are part
of
medical marijuana collectives. ASA is based in
10
Oakland, California. Members
of
ASA also have serious and/or debilitating medical11 conditions. The declarations are unclear as to what extent the membership
of
Grassroots and
12
ASA
overlap.13 Ms. Smith, while appearing in this action in her representative capacities, is also the
14
sole individual plaintiff, and holds her primary residence in the unincorporated area
of
Nevada
15
County.
16
The Court finds Plaintiffs have standing to bring the action.
171819
20
212223
24
25
26
27
28
ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT
OF
ORDINANCES GENERALLY
An
injunction typically will not be granted "[tlo prevent the execution
of
a publicstatute, by officers
of
the law, for the public benefit" or "[tlo prevent the exercise
of
a public orprivate office, in a lawful manner,
by
the person in possession." (Civ. Code,
§
3423; Code Civ.Proc.,
§
526.) While these general strictures do not preclude the issuance
of
preliminaryinjunctive relief when the constitutionality
of
a statute or ordinance is challenged,nevertheless, " ... trial courts should be extremely cautious ... to enjoin law enforcementofficials from enforcing an ordinance obviously approved and adopted by duly electedrepresentatives
of
the people for the purpose
of
promoting and protecting public morality prior3

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->