## Facts

- A city enacted zoning and regulatory ordinances prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries anywhere within its limits and declaring such operations a public nuisance subject to abatement.
- A medical marijuana collective/dispensary operated within the city despite the prohibition.
- The city filed a civil nuisance action seeking to stop the dispensary’s operations based on the local zoning ban.
- The trial court granted a preliminary injunction barring distribution of marijuana from the facility.
- The dispensary argued that California’s Compassionate Use Act (CUA) and Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) preempted the local ban.

## Issues

1. Whether the CUA and MMP expressly preempt a municipality from adopting a total zoning ban on medical marijuana dispensaries.
2. Whether the CUA and MMP impliedly preempt such a ban under conflict, field-occupation, or obstacle-preemption theories.
3. Whether a municipality may enforce a dispensary ban through a civil nuisance abatement action and preliminary injunction.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the preliminary injunction.
- The Court held the CUA and MMP do not expressly or impliedly preempt local authority to allow, restrict, limit, or entirely exclude medical marijuana dispensaries through zoning and police powers.
- The Court held the city could treat operation of a prohibited dispensary as a public nuisance under local law and enforce the prohibition through nuisance abatement and injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- Local governments retain broad police power and land-use authority to regulate or prohibit particular uses, absent a clear conflict with state law; preemption is not presumed.
- The CUA and MMP primarily provide limited protections from specified state criminal (and certain state nuisance) sanctions for qualified persons; they do not create a statewide entitlement to operate dispensaries in any locality.
- A local ban does not “contradict” state medical marijuana statutes where state law removes certain penalties but does not mandate that local jurisdictions permit dispensaries.
- The CUA and MMP do not occupy the entire field of medical marijuana distribution or land-use regulation, leaving room for local regulation and prohibition.
- A municipality may use civil nuisance doctrine and injunctive relief to enforce a valid zoning prohibition on dispensaries when state statutes do not bar such local enforcement.

## Conclusion

California’s medical marijuana statutes provide limited state-law immunities but do not require cities to permit dispensaries; municipalities may entirely ban dispensaries through zoning and enforce those bans through nuisance abatement actions, including preliminary injunctions.


City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Ctr., Inc., 56 Cal. 4th 729 (2013)