City of Lake Forest v. Lake Forest
Wellness Center etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 1/15/14  City of Lake Forest v. Lake Forest Wellness Center etc. CA4/3

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

 

 

 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a),
prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule
8.1115(b).  This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

 

 

 

 

IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

FOURTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION
THREE

 

 
>

CITY OF LAKE FOREST,         Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   LAKE FOREST WELLNESS CENTER AND COLLECTIVE et al.,         Defendants and Appellants.

G043817 (consol. with G043867)            (Super. Ct. No. 30-2009-00298887)            O P I N I O N

                        Appeal
from an order of the Superior Court of
Orange County, David R. Chaffee, Judge. 
Affirmed.

                        Howard|Nassiri, Vincent
D. Howard, Damian J. Nassiri, Naveen Madala; and Donna Bader for Defendants and
Appellants.

                        Best Best & Krieger,
Jeffrey V. Dunn and Lee Ann Meyer for Plaintiff and Respondent.

*                      *                      *

                        Lake Forest Wellness
Center and Collective contends local bans against medical marijuana
dispensaries are preempted because the Legislature made clear its policy
determination in Health and Safety Code
section 11362.775 that the cultivation of marijuana for sick Californians
by qualified cooperative or collective associations is not a nuisance, and
therefore, what the Legislature has authorized, the City of Lake Forest (the
city) may not ban.  We agreed in an unpublished
opinion, and because the trial court granted the city’s href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">injunction request solely on the basis of
the city’s dispensary ban, we reversed the preliminary injunction and remanded
the matter for further proceedings.  The
Supreme Court granted the city’s petition for review and later concluded in >City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients
Health & Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729 (>Inland Empire) that local governments
may ban medical marijuana dispensaries without triggering preemption by the href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Health
& Saf. Code, § 11362.5) or California’s
Medical Marijuana Program (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.7 et
seq.).  The high court transferred this
case back to us to consider in light of Inland Empire,
and because that decision is controlling authority (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d
450, 455), we affirm the preliminary injunction.  The parties shall bear their own costs on
appeal.

 

                                                                                   

                                                                                    ARONSON,
J.

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

 

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

 

 

 

FYBEL, J.