Filed 12/30/13 Modiano v. City of Anaheim CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
MARTIN MODIANO et al. G048303 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00601853) v. OPINION CITY OF ANAHEIM et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David R.
Chaffee, Judge. Affirmed.
Matthew Pappas and Lee Durst for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Michael R.W. Houston, City Attorney, and Moses W. Johnson, IV,
Assistant City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.
Best Best & Krieger and Jeffrey V. Dunn, for City of Riverside as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
* * * Martin Modiano, Helaine Jones, Kevin Butcher, and Marla James, as
disabled patients and members of Patient Med-Aid, a collective organized under the
Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CUA; Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5; all further
undesignated statutory references are to this code) and California’s Medical Marijuana
Program (MMP; § 11362.7 et seq.), and Patient Med-Aid itself (collectively referred to as
“Modiano,” under the lead plaintiff’s name) appeal from the trial court’s decision
denying their request for a declaratory judgment that the City of Anaheim’s (the city’s)
ban on medical marijuana dispensaries violates the Disabled Persons Act (DPA; Civ.
Code, §§ 54 et seq.). Modiano also argues the city’s efforts to aid federal authorities in
shutting down the Patient Med-Aid dispensary violated the bar on the illegal use of local
government funds (Code Civ. Proc., § 526a), “by spending taxpayer money to call in the
federal government” despite state medical marijuana law authorizing dispensaries. These
contentions, however, are simply variations on the core preemption claim resolved in City
of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health And Wellness Center, Inc. (2013)
56 Cal.4th 729 (Inland Empire). Inland Empire determined state medical marijuana law
does not preempt total local bans, and therefore it follows that dispensaries are not a
lawful source of medical marijuana for disabled persons if banned under local law. We are bound by that conclusion. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
57 Cal.2d 450, 455 (Auto Equity).) We therefore affirm the judgment.
Having noted the relevant background at the outset, we turn immediately to
our discussion of Modiano’s claims.
2 I
DISCUSSION
Modiano contends the city’s ban against dispensaries violates the DPA by
discriminating against seriously ill and disabled persons who are protected by the DPA
because of medical conditions that “limit a major life activity.” (Govt. Code, § 12926.1.)
He distinguishes between municipal enactments that discriminate and those ensuring
accommodation of the disabled in the sense of “something supplied for convenience or to
satisfy a need.”
Modiano observes that portions of the DPA require that certain government
entities and businesses positively accommodate the disabled, but he does not rely on
those provisions here. He specifically disclaims any notion local governments must
“‘accommodate’ or take positive action here that is in any way similar to building a
wheelchair ramp or widening a door under the different and separate accommodation
provisions of the DPA that are not at issue in this case. Here, the patients are not arguing
the government must build covered marijuana smoking areas.” Similarly, he
acknowledges “state and local government entities have no obligation to provide, through
accommodation, the mitigation relied on by seriously ill or disabled citizens (i.e. cultivation equipment, medical cannabis, or dispensaries) or, for example, special
chemotherapy rooms for people with cancer.”
But Modiano contends “the DPA prohibits discriminatory laws that facially
or by operation discriminate against such [mitigation] entities that can only provide for
[disabled] patients.” He likens dispensaries operated at collectives conforming to state
medical marijuana law to methadone clinics protected under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) against local “not in my backyard” discrimination.
3 For example, Modiano relies on Bay Area Addiction Research and
Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch (9th Cir. 1999) 179 F.3d 725, where a methadone clinic
sued on behalf of its patients to overturn a city ordinance effectively prohibiting
methadone treatment centers by means of a 500-foot exclusion zone from residential
areas. The Ninth Circuit explained local land-use zoning decisions are not exempt from
the ADA’s anti-discrimination provisions and found the ordinance facially discriminatory
because it subjected methadone clinics, but not other medical clinics, to the spacing
limitation. Cautioning that general concerns about crime were insufficient, the court
remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on whether individuals using the clinic
would pose a significant risk to local public health and safety. On remand, the district
court found no threat given the clinic’s safety procedures and therefore enjoined the
ordinance. (Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch (N.D.
Cal. March 16, 2000) [2000 WL 33716782, pp. 11-12].)
Modiano acknowledges a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit has concluded
the ADA does not apply to prohibit ordinances banning medical marijuana dispensaries,
reasoning the ADA impliedly incorporates the federal Controlled Substances Act’s
(CSA’s) designation of marijuana as an illegal drug serving no acceptable medical need, and therefore the ADA’s exclusion for disabled individuals using illegal drugs applied.
(James v. City of Costa Mesa (9th Cir. 2012) 700 F.3d 394, 403 (James).)
The majority in James held the ADA’s express exception stating “[t]he
term ‘illegal use of drugs’ . . . “does not include the use of a drug taken under supervision
by a licensed health care professional” (42 U.S.C. § 12210(d)(1)) did not apply to
physician recommendations under state law for the use of medical marijuana because that
“would allow a doctor to recommend the use of any controlled substance — including
4 cocaine or heroin — and thereby enable the drug user to avoid the ADA’s illegal drug
exclusion. Congress could not have intended to create such a capacious loophole [to the
CSA], especially through such an ambiguous provision.” (James, supra, 700 F.3d at
p. 403.) As Modiano notes, however, the Legislature has specified in the CUA and MMP
that the use of medical marijuana by qualified patients is not illegal under state law and,
on appeal, he relies solely on state law and the DPA, not the ADA, for his discrimination
claim. (See Govt. Code, § 12926.1 [“The Legislature finds and declares . . . [¶] . . . The
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed 12/30/13 Modiano v. City of Anaheim CA4/3
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 THREE
MARTIN MODIANO et al. G048303 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00601853) v. OPINION CITY OF ANAHEIM et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David R.
Chaffee, Judge. Affirmed.
Matthew Pappas and Lee Durst for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Michael R.W. Houston, City Attorney, and Moses W. Johnson, IV,
Assistant City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.
Best Best & Krieger and Jeffrey V. Dunn, for City of Riverside as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
* * * Martin Modiano, Helaine Jones, Kevin Butcher, and Marla James, as
disabled patients and members of Patient Med-Aid, a collective organized under the
Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CUA; Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5; all further
undesignated statutory references are to this code) and California’s Medical Marijuana
Program (MMP; § 11362.7 et seq.), and Patient Med-Aid itself (collectively referred to as
“Modiano,” under the lead plaintiff’s name) appeal from the trial court’s decision
denying their request for a declaratory judgment that the City of Anaheim’s (the city’s)
ban on medical marijuana dispensaries violates the Disabled Persons Act (DPA; Civ.
Code, §§ 54 et seq.). Modiano also argues the city’s efforts to aid federal authorities in
shutting down the Patient Med-Aid dispensary violated the bar on the illegal use of local
government funds (Code Civ. Proc., § 526a), “by spending taxpayer money to call in the
federal government” despite state medical marijuana law authorizing dispensaries. These
contentions, however, are simply variations on the core preemption claim resolved in City
of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health And Wellness Center, Inc. (2013)
56 Cal.4th 729 (Inland Empire). Inland Empire determined state medical marijuana law
does not preempt total local bans, and therefore it follows that dispensaries are not a
lawful source of medical marijuana for disabled persons if banned under local law. We are bound by that conclusion. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
57 Cal.2d 450, 455 (Auto Equity).) We therefore affirm the judgment.
Having noted the relevant background at the outset, we turn immediately to
our discussion of Modiano’s claims.
2 I
DISCUSSION
Modiano contends the city’s ban against dispensaries violates the DPA by
discriminating against seriously ill and disabled persons who are protected by the DPA
because of medical conditions that “limit a major life activity.” (Govt. Code, § 12926.1.)
He distinguishes between municipal enactments that discriminate and those ensuring
accommodation of the disabled in the sense of “something supplied for convenience or to
satisfy a need.”
Modiano observes that portions of the DPA require that certain government
entities and businesses positively accommodate the disabled, but he does not rely on
those provisions here. He specifically disclaims any notion local governments must
“‘accommodate’ or take positive action here that is in any way similar to building a
wheelchair ramp or widening a door under the different and separate accommodation
provisions of the DPA that are not at issue in this case. Here, the patients are not arguing
the government must build covered marijuana smoking areas.” Similarly, he
acknowledges “state and local government entities have no obligation to provide, through
accommodation, the mitigation relied on by seriously ill or disabled citizens (i.e. cultivation equipment, medical cannabis, or dispensaries) or, for example, special
chemotherapy rooms for people with cancer.”
But Modiano contends “the DPA prohibits discriminatory laws that facially
or by operation discriminate against such [mitigation] entities that can only provide for
[disabled] patients.” He likens dispensaries operated at collectives conforming to state
medical marijuana law to methadone clinics protected under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) against local “not in my backyard” discrimination.
3 For example, Modiano relies on Bay Area Addiction Research and
Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch (9th Cir. 1999) 179 F.3d 725, where a methadone clinic
sued on behalf of its patients to overturn a city ordinance effectively prohibiting
methadone treatment centers by means of a 500-foot exclusion zone from residential
areas. The Ninth Circuit explained local land-use zoning decisions are not exempt from
the ADA’s anti-discrimination provisions and found the ordinance facially discriminatory
because it subjected methadone clinics, but not other medical clinics, to the spacing
limitation. Cautioning that general concerns about crime were insufficient, the court
remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on whether individuals using the clinic
would pose a significant risk to local public health and safety. On remand, the district
court found no threat given the clinic’s safety procedures and therefore enjoined the
ordinance. (Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch (N.D.
Cal. March 16, 2000) [2000 WL 33716782, pp. 11-12].)
Modiano acknowledges a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit has concluded
the ADA does not apply to prohibit ordinances banning medical marijuana dispensaries,
reasoning the ADA impliedly incorporates the federal Controlled Substances Act’s
(CSA’s) designation of marijuana as an illegal drug serving no acceptable medical need, and therefore the ADA’s exclusion for disabled individuals using illegal drugs applied.
(James v. City of Costa Mesa (9th Cir. 2012) 700 F.3d 394, 403 (James).)
The majority in James held the ADA’s express exception stating “[t]he
term ‘illegal use of drugs’ . . . “does not include the use of a drug taken under supervision
by a licensed health care professional” (42 U.S.C. § 12210(d)(1)) did not apply to
physician recommendations under state law for the use of medical marijuana because that
“would allow a doctor to recommend the use of any controlled substance — including
4 cocaine or heroin — and thereby enable the drug user to avoid the ADA’s illegal drug
exclusion. Congress could not have intended to create such a capacious loophole [to the
CSA], especially through such an ambiguous provision.” (James, supra, 700 F.3d at
p. 403.) As Modiano notes, however, the Legislature has specified in the CUA and MMP
that the use of medical marijuana by qualified patients is not illegal under state law and,
on appeal, he relies solely on state law and the DPA, not the ADA, for his discrimination
claim. (See Govt. Code, § 12926.1 [“The Legislature finds and declares . . . [¶] . . . The
law of this state in the area of disabilities provides protections independent from those in
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990”].)
In particular, Modiano invokes the DPA’s “sweeping prohibition of
[government] practices that discriminate against people with disabilities by”
incorporating in Civil Code section 54, subdivision (c), the proscription that “no qualified
individual with a disability shall . . . be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
(Cf. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.) Modiano argues the city’s ban on medical marijuana
dispensaries uniquely targets the disabled because only patients with substantial medical
disabilities qualify to obtain marijuana cultivated at a dispensary collective. Indeed,
Modiano points out that the qualifiying medical conditions necessary to use medical marijuana are more restrictive than those to qualify for protection under the DPA.
Specifically, the MMP defines a “Serious medical condition” qualifying
one to use medical marijuana to include AIDS, anorexia, arthritis, multiple sclerosis
muscle spasms, epilepsy seizures, and “other chronic or persistent medical symptom[s]
that . . . “[s]ubstantially limits the ability of the person to conduct one or more major life
activities as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 . . . [or,] [i]f not
alleviated, may cause serious harm to the patient’s safety or physical or mental health.”
5 (§ 11362.7, subd. (h)(1)-(12) & (h)(A), (B).) The DPA enumerates similar qualifying
conditions, including “HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, epilepsy, seizure disorder . . . ,” but also
expressly provides that “the Legislature has determined that the definitions of ‘physical
disability’ and ‘mental disability’ under the [DPA] require a ‘limitation’ upon a major
life activity, but do not require, as does the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, a ‘substantial limitation.’ This distinction is intended to result in broader coverage
under the law of this state than under that federal act.” (Govt. Code, § 12926.1,
subd. (c).) Given the DPA’s broad reach, Modiano complains the city’s ban has no effect
on individuals who by virtue of their fortunate good health may not lawfully use medical
marijuana, but instead discriminates solely and directly against those who meet the
definition of a disabled person under the DPA.1
The problem with Modiano’s argument is that the Supreme Court has
determined the medical marijuana activities “authorized by law” under California’s
medical marijuana program (§ 11362.768, subd. (e)) may be countermanded by local
government bans. The court held in Inland Empire that a city ban on medical marijuana
dispensaries is not preempted by California medical marijuana law. The court did not
1 Amicus curiae City of Riverside argues the CSA preempts state law purporting to legalize marijuana, and therefore there can be no violation of the DPA because dispensaries are not a lawful source of medical marijuana under federal law. We rejected the notion of federal preemption in Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 735, 761. We explained the “‘unstated predicate’” of the federal preemption thesis is “‘that the federal government is entitled to conscript a state’s law enforcement officers into enforcing federal enactments, over the objection of that state . . .’” (ibid.), or similarly conscript the enactment or interpretation of state law to meet federal objectives. “The Federal Government,” however, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” (Printz v. United States (1997) 521 U.S. 898, 935.) 6 cite or discuss Civil Code section 3482, which provides: “Nothing which is done or
maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance.” It appears
the court implicitly determined Civil Code section 3482 does not apply because “state
law does not ‘authorize’ activities, to the exclusion of local bans, simply by exempting
those activities from otherwise applicable state prohibitions.” (Inland Empire, supra,
56 Cal.4th at p. 758.) Justice Liu observed in his concurrence that “[i]f such legislative
authorization were clear, then the ordinance in question might well be preempted.” (Id.
at p. 764.) Justice Liu concluded, however, that “[b]ecause state law does not clearly
authorize or intend to promote the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, I agree
that the City of Riverside’s prohibition on such dispensaries is not preempted.” (Id. at
p. 765.) But neither the concurring justice, nor the opinion of the court addressed the
Legislature’s amendment to the MMP in 2010 suggesting that in complying with state
medical marijuana law “a medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary,
operator, establishment, or provider . . . is authorized by law to possess, cultivate, or
distribute medical marijuana . . . .” (§ 11362.768, subd. (e), italics added.)2
The practical effect of Inland Empire is that a medical marijuana
cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment or provider authorized under state medical marijuana law to conduct its activities is not “authorized by law to possess,
cultivate, or distribute medical marijuana” (§ 11362.768, subd. (e)) unless also authorized
2 Specifically, the terms of section 11362.768, subdivision (e), provide that the Legislature’s enactment in 2010 requiring a 600-foot radius between schools and dispensaries with a storefront or mobile retail outlet “shall apply only to a medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider that is authorized by law to possess, cultivate, or distribute medical marijuana and that has a storefront or mobile retail outlet which ordinarily requires a local business license.” The Legislature therefore contemplated that some dispensaries are “authorized by law.” 7 by local law to do so. Under this rationale, a local government also may ban qualified
individuals from cultivating and using medical marijuana at home, given the primacy of
local land-use decisionmaking in Inland Empire. By the same reasoning, a disabled
person may not look to a dispensary as a source of lawful medical marijuana because its
medical marijuana activities are not “authorized by law” until they are ratified by local
law. In other words, state medical marijuana law not only incorporates local dispensary
regulations and restrictions (§ 11362.768, subd. (e)), but also outright bans. Modiano
complains this interpretation of state medical marijuana law effectively grants local
authorities a license to discriminate against disabled persons by foreclosing a lawful
source of medical marijuana to treat their conditions. But under Inland Empire, a source
is not lawful unless endorsed by local officials.
This vitiates Modiano’s related claim that the city violated Code of Civil
Procedure section 526a in turning to federal authorities to help shut down the dispensary.
That section creates “[a]n action to obtain a judgment, restraining and preventing any
illegal expenditure of . . . a county, town, city or city and county of the state . . . .”
(Italics added.) Modiano asserts city cooperation in any manner with federal authorities
to shut down dispensaries constituted an illegal use of local assets, thereby contravening state policy promoting the availability of medical marijuana for disabled persons and
other seriously ill Californians. But because state medical marijuana law incorporates
under Inland Empire local marijuana regulations and restrictions, including bans, the
city’s actions were not illegal under state law, nor under city or federal law deeming
medical marijuana illegal. Inland Empire is controlling law. (Auto Equity, supra,
57 Cal.2d at p. 455.)
8 III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.3 The parties shall bear their own costs on
appeal.
ARONSON, J.
WE CONCUR:
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
FYBEL, J.
3 We deny as irrelevant Modiano’s requests for judicial notice of: (1) a revised U.S. Department of Justice memorandum and other documents suggesting a more lenient federal approach to dispensaries that are not engaged in drug trafficking but instead serve the medical needs of their patients; (2) Assembly Bill 2279 (2009), passed by the Legislature to overturn the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications (2008) 42 Cal.4th 920 [no FEHA violation in terminating employee for marijuana use], but vetoed by the Governor; (3) patents issued by the Uniteds States Patent & Trademark Office based on the antioxidant properties of cannibinoids, to undermine the CSA’s conclusion marijuana has no medical uses. The documents do nothing to affect the conclusion in Inland Empire that state law does not preempt local bans on dispensaries, and therefore dispensaries are not a lawful source of marijuana for disabled persons. 9