P. v. G3 Holistic 11/9/11 CA4/2

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: E051663

Case Date: 01/19/2012

Preview:Filed 11/9/11 P. v. G3 Holistic CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., E051663 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super.Ct.No. CIVRS1002649) v. OPINION G3 HOLISTIC, INC., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Barry L. Plotkin, Judge. Affirmed. Roger Jon Diamond for Defendant and Appellant. William P. Curley, III, City Attorney; Richards, Watson & Gershon, Mitchell E. Abbott, T. Peter Pierce, and Christopher L. Hendricks for Plaintiffs and Respondents. I INTRODUCTION Defendant G3 Holistic, Inc. (G3 Holistic) appeals from a judgment entered in 1

favor of plaintiffs, the People of the State of California and the City of Upland (plaintiffs), after the trial court issued a permanent injunction enjoining G3 Holistic from operating a medical marijuana dispensary (MMD)1 in the City of Upland (Upland). The court further found that G3 Holistics MMD constituted a public nuisance per se and awarded plaintiffs their costs of suit. G3 Holistic contends Uplands ordinance banning MMDs in Upland is preempted by state law; specifically, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CUA) (Health & Saf. Code,

Download P. v. G3 Holistic 11/9/11 CA4/2.pdf