IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

Similar documents
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LAKE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO CENTRAL DIVISION UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

the Sheriff, Contra Costa County and DOES 1-20 seized his medical marijuana and destroyed it

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA, CALIFORNIA REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTIONS AND OF CHAPTER 18.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF EL DORADO

require that cities provide for or allow the establishment and or operation of medical marijuana

Gerald L. Hobrecht, City Attorney (Staff Contacts: Gerald Hobrecht (707) and Scott Whitehouse, (707) )

WHEREAS, the City of Westminster, pursuant to its police power, may adopt

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

Agenda Item A.2 CONSENT CALENDAR Meeting Date: June 16, 2009

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. Case No.: COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

City Attorney s Synopsis

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. Introduction

ORDINANCE NO

ORDINANCE NO. City Attorney s Synopsis

ORDINANCE NO The City Council of the City of Manteca does ordain as follows:

AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION TO THE EL DORADO COUNTY CODE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY ADDING CHAPTER 6

IMPERIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM

ORDINANCE NO IT IS ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of San Carlos as follows:

The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on 5/16/2011, now makes the following ruling:

GIC Consolidated with GIC County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML. Tentative Ruling re Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA

ORDINANCE NO

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE

INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 1417

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Case 2:16-cv DN Document 2 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 30

People v. Joseph. Jonathan P. Hobbs. April 12, 2012 VIA FEDEX

ORDINANCE NO. C.S AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 9.86 OF THE STANISLAUS COUNTY CODE PROHIBITING CANNABIS ACTIVITIES

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DlVISION. Case N O. ANB INJ-BNCTIVE R-Ebl-EFi PEJil'ION - 1 -

ORDINANCE NO The Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, ordains as follows:

ARTICLE III. - MEDICAL MARIJUANA. Sec Distribution. Page 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

TOWN OF KIOWA ORDINANCE NO

ORDINANCE NO WHEREAS, the City of Grover Beach is a General Law city organized pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution; and

Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

ORDINANCE NO. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Yolo hereby ordains as follows:

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

When used in this chapter, the words or phrases shall be defined as the following:

Counsel for Plaintiff

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Filing # E-Filed 11/10/ :27:26 PM

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

AGENDA. Rules of Decorum. Under the Government Code, the City Council may regulate disruptive behavior that impedes the City Council Meeting.

ORDINANCE NO ; CEQA

/ 8 ~Qb ORDINANCE NO.

Counsel for Plaintiff

ORDINANCE NO

Case 1:17-cv LJO-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 9

Case 5:16-cv JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:1

CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: September 12, 2012

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

v. P.C. NO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT I. Introductory Statement 1. This is a civil action by three organizations, and an individual who was

TOWNSHIP OF WILBER IOSCO COUNTY, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO ADOPTED: January 7, 2013 PUBLISHED: January 16, 2013

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY. Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDINANCE NO

Case3:13-cv NC Document1 Filed12/09/13 Page1 of 18

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE NO Effective: Upon Publication After Adoption Published: March 16, 2011 OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE

ACT 228 S.B. NO. 862

GARY ROSS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RAGINGWIRE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant and Respondent. S SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. v. C.A. No. 03- VERIFIED COMPLAINT. Jurisdiction And Venue

Sequoia Park Associates, a California limited partnership, Petitioner and Plaintiff,

COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE

Article X. - Establishment and Operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Sec Purpose. The purpose of interim urgency Ordinance 4770 is to

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 Sacramento, California tel fax

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. v. Civil Action No. Judge: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CARMEN A. TRUTANICH City Attorney

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Filing # E-Filed 11/21/ :06:57 AM

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

2016 Ballot Issues provided by Garland County Election Commission

SCC NO. The Board of Supervisors of the County Of Sacramento ordains as follows:

Case 3:07-cv TEH Document 1 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 1 of 13

Case 3:07-cv CBK Document 62 Filed 02/02/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 704

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANDREW J. GUILFORD ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 2:16-at Document 1 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FILED. Attomeys for Plaintiff CALIFORNL\ GROWERS ASSOCIATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNL\ COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CASE NO.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 1:16-cv AWI-EPG Document 1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 1 of 18

E-FILED 12/26/2017 4:20 PM FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT By: C. Cogburn, Deputy

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Now comes Plaintiff, the Rhode Island Affiliate, American Civil Liberties Union

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Transcription:

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 JOSEPH D. ELFORD (S.B. NO. 1 Americans for Safe Access 1 Webster Street #0 Oakland, CA 1 Telephone: (1 - Fax: ( -00 Counsel for Plaintiffs IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS and WILLIAM McPIKE, Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. v. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, CITY OF FRESNO, a municipal corporation, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Defendant. I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising out of an unlawful ordinance passed by the City of Fresno banning medical marijuana collectives throughout the city. Plaintiff McPike is a qualified medical marijuana patient who took steps towards forming a medical marijuana collective in accordance with California Health and Safety Code sections. and.. Together with plaintiff Americans for Safe Access, plaintiff McPike, on behalf of 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 himself and on behalf of others who are similarly situated, as well as those who are detrimentally affected by the City Ordinance, seek an order declaring Fresno Municipal Code section -1 (Fresno City Ordinance No. 00- unlawful and enjoining its continued implementation. The City of Fresno s rigid policy of banning all medical marijuana collectives deprives qualified medical marijuana patients of the medicine promised them by the Compassionate Use Act (Cal. Health & Safety Code.(d, thereby causing them wholly unnecessary pain and suffering. Section - 1 violates the Compassionate Use Act (Cal. Health & Safety Code.(d.. In the general election of November, 1, fifty-seven percent of the California electorate approved a ballot measure enacting Proposition 1 ( Proposition 1 or the Compassionate Use Act or the CUA. In so doing, the California voters declared as their purpose [t]o ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. (Cal. Health & Safety Code.(b(1(A Furthermore, the voters sought [t]o encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana. (Cal. Health & Safety Code.(b(1(C. On September, 00, the California Legislature clarified the Compassionate Use Act through its passage of SB 0. In particular, the Legislature provided that Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section,,, 0,,., or 0. (Cal. Health & Safety Code. Under these laws, plaintiff McPike had a right to associate with other qualified patients and primary caregivers to furnish sick and dying persons with the medicine they need.. Notwithstanding plaintiff McPike s right to open a collective to furnish marijuana to qualified patients and their primary caregivers, the City of Fresno enacted Fresno Municipal Code section -1, which provides: (d Medical Marijuana Dispensaries where medical marijuana is distributed by, distributed to, or made available to any combination of three or more qualified patients, persons with an identification card, or primary caregivers defined by California Health and Safety Code. et seq. are prohibited. (Fresno Municipal Code -1(d Subsection - 1(c, in turn, defines a Medical Marijuana Dispensary as any facility or location, whether fixed or mobile, where medical marijuana is made available to, distributed by, or distributed to one or more of the following: (1 a qualified patient, ( a person with an identification card, or ( a primary caregiver. As a result of this policy, plaintiff has been forbidden from opening and operating a medical marijuana collective and medical marijuana patients represented by Americans for Safe Access have had to suffer and/or turn to the black market to obtain the medicine they need.. The expansive prohibition on medical marijuana collectives violates California Health and Safety Code sections. and.. Both the California Constitution and the Government Code prohibit the enforcement of a city ordinance in conflict with state law. (Cal. Const,, art. XI, : Gov t Code 0 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. Jurisdiction is based on Article VI, Section of the California Constitution; Civil Code sections 1. &.1; and Code of Civil Procedure sections. and.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1. Venue is proper in the Superior Court in and for the County of Fresno, pursuant to California Government Code section. and California Code of Civil Procedure section (b. III. THE PARTIES A. Plaintiffs. Plaintiff AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS ( ASA is a non-profit corporation with its office in Oakland, California that has as its primary purpose working to protect the rights of patients and doctors to use marijuana for medical purposes. ASA s members and constituents include individuals within California who are adversely affected by the Fresno ban. Implementation of this ordinance has had and will continue to have a severe impact on the statutory rights of the members and constituents of ASA, which causes them immediate and irreparable harm.. Plaintiff WILLIAM McPIKE is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a qualified medical marijuana patient and a resident of the County of Fresno. He is also an ASA member. B. Defendant. Defendant CITY OF FRESNO is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a municipal corporation within the State of California. IV. FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION. On November, 1, California voters passed Proposition 1, which is codified as the Compassionate Use Act at California Health & Safety Code., to ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes.... (See Cal. Health & Safety Code.(b(1. 1. Seven years later, on September, 00, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 0, Stats. 00 c. ( SB 0, to clarify that Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section,,, 0,,., or 0. (Cal. Health & Safety Code. Under these laws, plaintiff McPike had a right to associate with other qualified patients and primary caregivers to furnish sick and dying persons with the medicine they need. 1. Precisely as the voters of California and their Legislature intended, plaintiff McPike took steps to form a medical marijuana collective. 1. In July or August of 00, McPike drafted the Article of Incorporation for a non-profit corporation known as the Tower Health Clinic & Dispensary. 1. After being told by an employee of the Fresno City Planning Department that he would need to submit a business plan in order to receive zoning approval, McPike submitted a twopage business plan to that agency. 1. Weeks later, on October, 00, the Council of the City of Fresno enacted Ordinance No. 00-, which added Section -1 to the Fresno Municipal Code. Notwithstanding the Compassionate Use Act and SB 0, that section provides: (d Medical Marijuana Dispensaries where medical marijuana is distributed by, distributed to, or made available to any combination of three or more qualified patients, persons with an identification card, or primary caregivers defined by California Health and Safety Code. et seq. are prohibited. (Fresno Municipal Code -1(d Subsection -1(c, in turn, defines a Medical Marijuana Dispensary as any facility or location, whether fixed or mobile, where medical marijuana is made available to, distributed by, or distributed to one or more of the following: (1 a qualified patient, ( a person with an identification card, or ( a primary caregiver.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1. As a direct and proximate result of the Section -1, plaintiff McPike has suffered, and will continue to suffer, the loss of his right to open and operate a medical marijuana collective to furnish marijuana to qualified patients and primary caregivers, which, in turn, deprives the seriously ill represented by ASA of the medicine promised them by the voters of California through the passage of Proposition 1. 1. An actual and substantial controversy exists between plaintiffs and defendant as to their respective legal rights and duties. Plaintiffs contend that, as applied to them and to others similarly situated, Fresno Municipal Code section -1 is unlawful and unconstitutional. Defendant contends the opposite. 1. If not enjoined by the Court, defendant will continue to implement Fresno Municipal Code section -1 in derogation of the rights of plaintiffs, others similarly situated, and qualified medical marijuana patients. Such implementation will impose irreparable injury on the plaintiffs and these other persons. 0. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. V. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of California Constitution, Article, and Government Code 0 1. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 0 of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.. Article, Section of the California Constitution and Government Code section 0 prohibit the enactment of municipal laws that conflict with the general laws of the State.. Through the passage of the Compassionate Use Act, the California voters declared as their purpose [t]o ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person s health would benefit from the use of marijuana.... (Cal. Health & Safety Code.(b(1(A Furthermore, they sought out to ensure a safe and effective distribution system. (See Cal. Health & Safety Code.(b(1(C. To advance the will of the California voters, the Legislature enacted SB 0, which established cooperatives and collectives as the recognized forms of medical marijuana cultivation and distribution to those who are too sick are otherwise unable to cultivate it for themselves. (See Cal. Health & Safety Code.. In passing these laws, the voters of California and their Legislature have occupied the field of medical marijuana law generally, which is a matter of pressing statewide concern. Because Fresno Municipal Code section -1 conflicts these general laws by curtailing the right of seriously ill Californians to obtain the medicine they need through the distribution channels identified by the State, the general rule of California must prevail over the Fresno City Ordinance. (See City of Fresno v. Pinedale County Water Dist. (1 1 Cal.App.d 0, ; City of Los Angeles v. State of California (1 1 Cal.App.d,. V. RELIEF SOUGHT WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, seek the following relief: 1. A declaration that Fresno Municipal Code section -1 is unlawful and unconstitutional;. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendant and its agents and employees from enforcing, or threatening to enforce, Fresno Municipal Ordinance section -1;

. Costs and attorneys fees incurred in this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1., or other applicable authority; and. Such other and further relief as may be just and proper. DATED: April, 00 JOSEPH D. ELFORD Attorney for Plaintiffs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

VERIFICATION I am the individual plaintiff in this action. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of April, in Fresno, California. WILLIAM McPIKE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial of this action. DATED: April, 00 JOSEPH D. ELFORD Attorney for Plaintiffs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1