Articles Posted in Los Angeles Marijuana Dispensaries

City council voted unanimously Friday to pass its “draft temporary urgency ordinance,” the latest in a long string of ill-conceived moves that will likely ensure hundreds of thousands of additional tax dollars are wasted in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

As our Los Angeles medical marijuana defense attorneys previously reported on our Marijuana Lawyer Blog, the city has rushed to pass the latest measure in the wake of a judge’s ruling that prohibits it from enforcing a measure passed in June. Both seek to reduce the number of medical marijuana businesses, which are legal under state law, to just 100, an 80 percent reduction from the more than 500 that were operating when the first ordinance went into effect in June.

By passing yet another ordinance before the legal issues with the initial ordinance are resolved, the city is virtually guaranteed to accomplish nothing more than to initiative additional litigation.

The L.A. Times reports council passed the measure 12-0 after the city’s special prosecutor (another taxpayer expense) reported numerous dispensaries were reopening since the judge’s order preventing the city from taking enforcement action while litigation is pending.

The judge’s ruling, however, only impacts dispensaries that have filed lawsuits. More than 200 are involved in more than 40 lawsuits. Those that have not joined the fight are encouraged to contact a marijuana dispensary attorney in Los Angeles to discuss their rights.

The new ordinance would provide a lottery to ensure the number remains at 100 if fewer than that can comply. Currently, about 135 remain open under the city’s rules. Those that are eliminated will almost certainly take legal action, the Times reports.
Continue reading

This is the third blog to look at the city’s new “draft temporary urgency ordinance” meant to regulate medical marijuana collectives and dispensaries in Los Angeles in the wake of an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing a June ordinance. That ordinance would have forced the closure of all but about 50 of the city’s more than 500 legally operating medical marijuana businesses.

Previously on our Medical Marijuana Lawyers Blog, our Los Angeles dispensary defense lawyers reported the new “draft temporary urgency ordinance” was essentially the same as the one under attack in more than 40 lawsuits. Both would limit dispensaries to those registered with the city prior to September 2007, would require management, location and other restrictions, and would conduct a lottery to ensure that at least 100 dispensaries survive.


Other features of the “draft temporary urgency ordinance” include:

-Sunset Clause: Since a judge barred the city from enforcing a sunset clause the new ordinance replaces it with a two-year renewal requirement.

-Records: The judge also barred the city from forcing collectives to make available to police without a search warrant the name, address and telephone numbers of patients. The new ordinance attempts to establish a number of ways to skirt patient privacy rights.

-Enforcement: The judge’s order prohibited criminal enforcement, which the city called “misguided” (as if the city gets to decide). The new ordinance provides only civil punishments.

-Urgency: The new order provides for urgency because of the city’s assertion that failure to regulate dispensaries will cause immediate harm.
Continue reading

As our Los Angeles medical marijuana collective attorneys reported recently on our Marijuana Lawyer Blog, council’s “draft temporary urgency ordinance” is well-named.

It is certainly a rough-draft. It is temporary in that it has little chance of passing legal muster. And it is urgent, if that means rash. Having been handed a series or legal defeats, council is now attempting to draft a second ordinance limiting the number of Los Angeles medical marijuana dispensaries before it has a clear understanding of the legal problems of the ordinance now being litigated by more than 200 plaintiffs in more than 40 lawsuits.

The lawsuits attacked the arbitrary date in September 2007 chosen by council after which new dispensaries could not been legally opened. And it challenged the requirement that the original owners and managers still be involved with the business. That requirement was so problematic that fewer than 50 of the city’s 500 dispensaries could have complied. Imagine requiring convenience stores to never replace management or change ownership.

Both requirements remain in the new “draft temporary urgency ordinance.”

And so, the city is now requiring anyone seeking “grandfathering status” to ride on down to the Clerk of Courts, bring all the required documentation and fees, and reapply — no sooner than 10 days nor no later than 15 after the effective date of the “draft temporary urgency ordinance.”

We hope all members of council will pile into a subcompact for several hundred rides back and forth to the courthouse as city attorneys are forced to deal with this latest legislative disaster.

The city does say if a collective was registered in 2007, and registered in 2010 as part of the first ordinance, a third registration is not required. But last year’s registration revealed the city’s record and administrative process was in such shambles, who really knows?

The “draft temporary urgency ordinance” also includes the same lottery system to ensure at least 100 collectives will be allowed to remain in operation. It was never anticipated the lottery would need to be conducted but the ordinance has proven so restrictive that fewer than 50 collectives would be able to comply and survive.

The city announces this 100 number is “roughly consistent” with the number tossed about during public hearings. So at least there is that for comfort. Nothing arbitrary about a figure that is “roughly consistent” with one that might have been mentioned at a public hearing once.

It does say “city resources” will be severely constrained and more than 100 cannot be considered “at this time of municipal fiscal crisis.”

Though, apparently defending the city against 40 lawsuits is feasible, as is opening the city up to 40 more through quickly establishing a “draft temporary urgency ordinance.”

Check back for more on this ordinance in our next blog.
Continue reading

Having spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in an effort to thwart state law and prevent patients from obtaining medical marijuana, the city’s ordinance is now on what could prove to be a failing course in the court system. So, without waiting for a full finding of the facts, the city has drafted a second ordinance, which will likely do little aside from double the resources and legal fees it must spend on this absurd battle.

City council adopted the Los Angeles Medical Marijuana Ordinance on Jan. 26, 2010 and it became effective June 7. The plan aimed to reduce the number of medical marijuana dispensaries from more than 500 to about 100. However, the plan was so ill-conceived that fewer than 50 would have survived.

More than 40 lawsuits have been filed involved hundreds of litigants. Our Los Angeles medical marijuana dispensary attorneys represent more than a dozen dispensaries and collectives in Los Angeles and the surrounding area.

As we reported recently on our Marijuana Lawyer Blog a judge handed a major victory to dispensaries when he issued an injunction prohibiting the city from taking enforcement action while the issues are being litigated. The judge has since denied the city’s request to stay the injunction.

However, the rulings only impact those dispensaries which have filed lawsuits. If you have not yet joined the fight, consulting a medical marijuana defense lawyer in Los Angeles is the best bet for protecting your rights and fighting for the survival of your business.

In response, and because council apparently has nothing more important on its agenda than limiting the access of medical marijuana patients, it is redrafting the ordinance. In other words, it is attempting to draft an order that will pass muster even before issues with its current order have been litigated. In all likelihood, it will simply have two ordinances under intense litigation and its rash reactions, like that of a spoiled child, will likely result in nothing more than a doubling of its legal fees.

The city is calling this a “draft temporary urgency ordinance.” Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

-The new order “revises grandfathering.” The original order attempted to limit collectives by only permitting those which had opened on or before Set. 14, 2007. The old ordinance required registration with the city clerk by Nov. 13. The new ordinance eliminates that criteria but maintains the same Sept. 14,2007 date.

-One of the most problematic issues with the original ordinance was the requirement that a marijuana collective be under the same ownership and management. This was later revised by the city to include at least one of the original owners. That requirement remains in place with the new ordinance.

Check back for more information about the city’s new “draft temporary urgency ordinance.”

The city also announced it will seek an appellate court stay of the injunction and an expedited review.
Continue reading

Los Angeles medical marijuana dispensaries must post a $350,000 bond after winning an injunction blocking the city from enforcing an ordinance seeking their closure, The Los Angeles Times reported.

Our Los Angeles medical marijuana defense lawyers hail the ruling as a major victory for dispensaries fighting the city’s unfair and arbitrary ordinance. However, the ruling only impacts those dispensaries that have chosen to fight. The CANNABIS LAW GROUP is representing more than a dozen dispensaries and collectives in Los Angeles and the surrounding area and we urge medical marijuana businesses to contact our office for a confidential consultation.

Attorneys for the dispensaries said they expected the bond to be posted. About 50 dispensaries and operators had sought the injunction. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Anthony J. Mohr ruled in their favor last month. He started the year by refusing to issue a stay at the request of the city, which would have prevented the injunction from taking effect. He also refused to provide the city with guidance about how it might rewrite the law.

Meanwhile, the city is spending tax dollars to both appeal the ruling and develop and alternative law. The city had requested the bond amount be set at $1 million, saying closed pot shops are reopening even as new ones have started popping up.

The judge set the bond amount at $348,102.30, based in part on the city’s estimate of police costs and attorney fees.
Continue reading

The city has been denied a stay of the injunction issued against enforcement of its marijuana dispensary ordinance, effectively denying it the ability to enforce its unjust and ill-conceived order to shut down the vast majority of the city’s medical marijuana businesses.

The Los Angeles marijuana dispensary attorneys at The CANNABIS LAW GROUP hail the decision as a big win for the local medical marijuana industry, which is aggressively fighting moves by city council to interrupt these businesses. These shops are operating legally and in accordance with state law. We believe there is strength in number and urge you to join the fight. The judge’s ruling only applies to collectives who are in the fight. Those standing on the sidelines are not afforded the same protections. Our Los Angeles marijuana collectives attorneys currently represent more than a dozen dispensaries and collectives in Los Angeles and the surrounding area. We offer reasonable legal fees and confidential appointments to discuss your rights.

The Los Angeles Times reports the judge ruled key parts of the ordinance unconstitutional and refused to stay his injunction. He also rebuffed the city’s request on how to rewrite the law so that it would pass muster.

Nor should the judge have sanctioned the lunacy being carried out by the amateur politicians on city council, who apparently have found no serious issues facing the city and are content to waste millions of tax dollars to defend an ordinance that is being soundly defeated as unfair, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Continue reading