Sacramento Boutique, in New Suit, Challenges Marijuana Delivery Regs
Churchwell White is representing one county and 24 cities suing the Bureau of Cannabis Control and its director, Lori Ajax, over the expansive delivery authority included in marijuana regulations approved in January.
April 05, 2019 at 03:02 PM
4 minute read
A Sacramento boutique law firm known for its local government, land use and water practices will lead the legal challenge to overturn California regulations that allow marijuana deliveries throughout the state, even in jurisdictions that don't want them.
Churchwell White is representing one county and 24 cities suing the Bureau of Cannabis Control and its director, Lori Ajax, over the expansive delivery authority included in marijuana regulations approved in January. The suit, filed late Thursday in Fresno County Superior Court, asks a judge to invalidate the specific rule allowing statewide deliveries without local approval.
Churchwell White name partner Steven Churchwell is a former general counsel to the state fair political practices commission and a onetime lawyer at the Office of Administrative Law. Firm co-founder Douglas White is a land use attorney with an extensive history in state Capitol advocacy work.
Firm lawyers already serve as contract city attorneys or deputy city attorneys for nine of the city-plaintiffs.
“It kind of puts us in a unique position to understand what's going on and what's legal from a regulatory standpoint,” said White.
A spokesman for the Bureau of Cannabis Control declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Dustin McDonald, vice president for government affairs at Weedmaps, the online marijuana directory, tweeted Friday that “25 CA local govts (16 of whose voters passed Prop 64 by 50% or more 2 yrs ago) sue state to suppress safe/legal access to patients in lieu of licensing legal retail. Choosing not to license retail is a deliberate choice to maintain a robust illegal market.”
The plaintiffs contend that Proposition 64, the 2016 voter-approved initiative legalizing recreational marijuana, gave cities and counties broad control over whether and how to allow cannabis operations in their boundaries. Despite voters' overwhelming approval of the measure, a majority of jurisdictions have banned some or all kinds of commercial marijuana activities, from cultivation to retail sales.
Last year, then-Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Los Angeles, introduced legislation, sponsored by WeDrop Cannabis Delivery, to prohibit cities and counties from barring deliveries. The bill was shelved amid concerns in legislative committees' analyses that the proposal could run afoul of voters' intent in passing Proposition 64.
Later that year, the bill's provisions appeared in draft marijuana regulations circulated by the Bureau of Cannabis Control.
“If we issue a license for delivery, which is a retail license, they can deliver anywhere in the state, regardless of whether there's a ban in place (locally) or not,” Ajax told a meeting of the Cannabis Advisory Council in November. “Of course, a lot of cities don't feel that way. They feel that if they have a ban, we're eroding their local control at that point. The state looks at it as, when we issue a license, we don't issue just to a premises, but you can conduct commercial activity all over the state.”
Despite complaints from cities, counties and law enforcement agencies, the statewide delivery language stayed in the final regulations approved by the Office of Administrative Law in January.
White said that some of his firm's city clients allow some type of locally permitted cannabis operations, but they fear having no control over the numbers and practices of state-licensed delivery services dropping off orders at locations in their boundaries.
“The issue really is not so much a ban” on marijuana businesses, said White. “The problem is these regulations have created a large proliferation.”
White said lawyers at his firm have spoken with representatives of at least six other counties and 20 cities interested in joining the lawsuit.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInsurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
6 minute readMeet the Pacific Northwest Judges Who Rejected the Kroger-Albertsons Supermarket Merger
4 minute readJudge's Civil Contempt Order for Zoom Recording Violation Must Include 'The Keys to the Cell,' State Appellate Court Says
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250