Dynamic Meds v. The City of Perris CA4/1

Filed 8/18/25 Dynamic Meds v. The City of Perris CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DYNAMIC MEDS, INC., D084808

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. CVRI2202067)

THE CITY OF PERRIS et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Christopher B. Harmon, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Lawrence R. Bynum and Lawrence R. Bynum, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Aleshire & Wynder, Michael R. Linden and Priscilla George, for Defendants and Respondents.

Dynamic Meds, Inc. (Dynamic) appeals from an order denying the motion for attorney fees that Dynamic filed after the trial court granted Dynamic’s petition for writ of mandamus against the City of Perris (the City) and the City’s Planning Manager, Kenneth Phung.

We conclude that Dynamic has not identified any basis for an award of attorney fees in its favor, and we accordingly affirm the trial court’s order. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Dynamic applied to the City in 2017 for a permit to operate a medical marijuana dispensary, and in 2018 it applied to the City for a permit to operate an adult-use marijuana dispensary. The City conditionally approved the permits in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The conditions attached to the permits included, among other things, that Dynamic obtain a certificate of occupancy and a business license and that it conform to approved project site plans and floor plans. On September 7, 2021, the City sent Dynamic a notice stating that it was “officially revoking the Medical Marijuana Dispensary Permit Application and Adult Use Regulatory Retailer Permit Application . . . due to abandonment of the renewal application.” The City’s notice explained that Dynamic had not fulfilled the conditions set forth in the conditionally issued permits. The City also explained that Dynamic had been operating illegally before obtaining final approval to do so, that Dynamic must “cease its operations,” and that “failure to do so may result in Code Enforcement action and referral to the City Attorney’s Office for legal action.” However, the record contains no indication that the City ever instituted a code enforcement action or any other legal action. Dynamic attempted to appeal the City’s revocation of its conditional permits to the City’s planning commission. In its notice of appeal, Dynamic cited section 5.58.170 of the City’s municipal code, which states that “[a]ny decision regarding approval, conditional approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a commercial marijuana operation permit may be appealed to