## Facts

- Darrell Kruse sought to open a medical-marijuana dispensary in the City of Claremont and asked city officials where it could be located.
- The planning director informed Kruse that a marijuana dispensary was not a permitted or enumerated use under the City’s land-use code and would require a code amendment.
- Kruse submitted a business permit and license application describing a medical cannabis collective selling marijuana plants, dried flowers, and edibles, acknowledging the business had to comply with local code and obtain departmental approvals.
- The City denied the application after determining the proposed dispensary use was not allowed under existing zoning, and it dismissed Kruse’s administrative appeal.
- Kruse operated the dispensary without a City business license despite warnings that doing so violated the municipal code.
- The City sued, alleging the unlicensed dispensary constituted a public nuisance and seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting operation of a medical-marijuana dispensary within the City.

## Issues

1. Whether the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) and Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA) preempt a city’s land-use and business-licensing authority to prohibit or enjoin medical-marijuana dispensaries.
2. Whether operating a medical-marijuana dispensary without a required city business license and contrary to local zoning may be treated as, and enjoined as, a public nuisance.
3. Whether the CUA and MMPA create an affirmative right to operate a medical-marijuana dispensary that overrides local land-use and licensing requirements.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the permanent injunction against Kruse and the dispensary entity.
- The CUA and MMPA did not preempt the City’s authority to regulate land use and business licensing, including prohibiting dispensaries as a land use.
- The City could treat operation of an unlicensed business in violation of its municipal code as a public nuisance and obtain injunctive relief.
- State medical-marijuana statutes provided limited protections from certain criminal sanctions and did not confer a right to operate a dispensary contrary to local regulation.

## Legal Principles

- A party asserting state-law preemption of a local ordinance bears the burden of establishing preemption.
- The CUA and MMPA do not occupy the field of dispensary regulation and do not compel local jurisdictions to permit medical-marijuana dispensaries.
- Local governments may use zoning and business-licensing rules under their police powers to restrict or prohibit dispensaries when not inconsistent with state law.
- Operating a business without a required local license, and in violation of local land-use requirements, may be declared a public nuisance and enjoined.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a citywide injunction against a medical-marijuana dispensary that operated without a business license and contrary to zoning, holding that the CUA and MMPA did not preempt local land-use and licensing authority and did not create an affirmative right to operate a dispensary.


City of Claremont v. Kruse, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1153, 100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)