County of Los Angeles v. Acme Silver Place CA2/2

Filed 5/23/16 County of Los Angeles v. Acme Silver Place CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, B262874

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC555178) v.

ACME SILVER PLACE et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Rita Miller, Judge. Affirmed.

Matthew Pappas and Charnel James for Defendants and Appellants.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Elaine M. Lemke, Acting Assistant County Counsel, Sari J. Steel, Principal Deputy County Counsel, Tracy Swann, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

The defendants operate a medical marijuana dispensary in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. The trial court enjoined defendants’ operation because the County Code bans marijuana dispensaries. Defendants have not shown that they have standing to claim disability discrimination, and their challenge to the legality of the County Code has no merit. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In August 2014, the County of Los Angeles filed a complaint for injunctive relief to abate a public nuisance.1 The complaint alleges that defendants operate a medical marijuana dispensary (MMD) in Hacienda Heights, an unincorporated County area. Zoning enforcement officers entered the property on numerous occasions in 2013 and 2014 to confirm that defendants were operating a MMD, in violation of the County Code. A hearing was scheduled on the County’s request for a preliminary injunction. Defendants’ opposition, filed the day before the hearing, did not reach the courtroom in time. The trial court did not consider the untimely opposition because the County was prejudiced by its inability to respond. The court denied defendants’ request for a continuance, noting that the County had waited “a long time for a hearing,” owing to the court’s congested calendar. After argument, the court determined that the County is entitled to a preliminary injunction because it is likely to prevail on the merits at trial and the interim harm to the County is greater than the harm to the defendants. The court signed an order on January 21, 2015, finding that defendants made additions and alterations to their property without obtaining required building permits, and are operating a MMD in an unincorporated area in violation of the County Code. The appeal is timely.