City of Claremont v. Kruse
2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1563, 177 Cal.App.4th 1153, 100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2009)
Rule of Law:
California's Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program do not preempt local government zoning powers or temporary moratoriums on dispensaries, and a business operating in violation of local licensing requirements constitutes a nuisance per se subject to injunction without proof of actual harm.
Facts:
- Darrell Kruse inquired with the City of Claremont about opening a medical marijuana dispensary.
- City planners informed Kruse that dispensaries were not a permitted use under the current code and that he would need to seek a code amendment.
- Kruse submitted a business permit application which included an acknowledgement that he must comply with city codes and wait for approval.
- Despite not receiving approval, Kruse immediately opened 'CANNABIS' (Claremont All Natural Nutrition Aids Buyers Information Service) for business.
- The City formally denied his application because the zoning code did not list dispensaries as a permitted use.
- The City subsequently adopted a 45-day moratorium on dispensaries to study their impact.
- City officials inspected Kruse's business, confirmed he was operating without a license, and issued cease and desist orders.
- Kruse refused to close the business and continued operations despite receiving multiple administrative citations.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Claremont filed a civil action against Kruse in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction.
- The Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order and subsequently a preliminary injunction against Kruse.
- A court trial was held where parties stipulated to facts regarding the lack of license.
- The Superior Court ruled in favor of the City, finding the moratorium valid and Kruse's operation a nuisance per se.
- The Superior Court entered a judgment and permanent injunction preventing Kruse from operating the dispensary.
- Kruse appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do California's medical marijuana laws preempt a municipality's authority to enact a moratorium on dispensaries and enforce zoning regulations, and does operating a dispensary without a required business license constitute a nuisance per se?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Chavez
No, state law does not preempt local zoning authority, and yes, the operation constituted a nuisance per se. The Court affirmed the judgment against Kruse. Regarding the nuisance issue, the Court reasoned that the City's municipal code expressly declares that any condition existing in violation of the code is a public nuisance. Because Kruse indisputably operated without the required business license and tax certificate, his conduct qualified as a "nuisance per se." Under this doctrine, the City was not required to prove that the business caused actual harm or injury to the community; the mere existence of the violation was sufficient to justify an injunction. Regarding preemption, the Court analyzed whether the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) or the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) overrode local zoning laws. The Court found no express preemption because the text of these statutes focuses on protecting patients and physicians from criminal liability, not on land use or business licensing. The Court also found no implied preemption, noting that the MMP explicitly allows local governments to adopt consistent laws. The Court rejected the argument that the "right to obtain and use marijuana" created a broad right to open dispensaries anywhere without regard for local zoning. Consequently, the City's temporary moratorium and licensing requirements were valid exercises of local police power.
Analysis:
This case is a significant precedent in California municipal law regarding the regulation of medical marijuana. It clarifies the boundaries between state decriminalization statutes and local police powers. The decision reinforces the principle that state laws legalizing specific conduct (like medical marijuana use) do not automatically strip local governments of their traditional authority to regulate land use and zoning unless the state legislature explicitly indicates an intent to occupy the entire field. It also provides a powerful tool for cities—the 'nuisance per se' doctrine—allowing them to enjoin non-compliant businesses based solely on code violations without the burdensome requirement of proving specific damages or harm to the public.
