What's new
  • As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
  • ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest in October! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

Judge proposes injunction on sales of pot at Eagle Rock dispensary

richyrich

Out of the slime, finally.
Veteran
Judge proposes injunction on sales of pot at Eagle Rock dispensary

He sides with City Atty. Carmen Trutanich and concludes that state law does not allow marijuana to be sold. Another hearing is scheduled for January.

By John Hoeffel
December 2, 2009

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, concluding that state law does not allow medical marijuana to be sold, proposed an injunction Tuesday that would order an Eagle Rock dispensary to cease selling it.

"I don't believe that a storefront dispensary that sells marijuana is lawful," said Judge James C. Chalfant at a hearing on a lawsuit that City Atty. Carmen Trutanich filed Oct. 28 against Hemp Factory V.

The civil suit is Trutanich's first attempt to use the courts to close a dispensary in a city that has seen hundreds open while the City Council debated an ordinance for more than a year and a half.

Chalfant's injunction would be a victory for Trutanich, who sought unsuccessfully to persuade the council to explicitly ban medical marijuana sales. Chalfant accepted the same legal argument that the council sidestepped and appeared ready to grant the injunction Tuesday but set an additional hearing for late January.

Trutanich challenge

The case could test Trutanich's double-barreled challenge to the city's dispensaries.

In addition to maintaining that sales are illegal, he has also argued that the state's food-and-drug safety law applies to medical marijuana. He reached that conclusion after samples of marijuana from dispensaries, including Hemp Factory V, were found to contain pesticides.

In an Oct. 30 decision, Chalfant sided with Trutanich and ordered the dispensary not to distribute pesticide-tainted marijuana. His proposed injunction would also require Hemp Factory V to label its marijuana as though it were a typical medicine.

William W. Carter, the chief deputy city attorney, would not say whether other cases would follow, but said, "This is an ongoing investigation involving a number of different locations."

He said the case was filed because the council had not passed an ordinance the city attorney could enforce. "It became a crisis in L.A.," he said.

The judge, in forceful comments, said he believes state laws allow collectives only to cultivate and distribute pot.

He noted that dispensaries create "a whole host of problems" and "a serious risk of cheating." Chalfant said that an entrepreneur could pay himself $500,000, call it an expense and declare that his business adheres to the law's requirement that medical marijuana not be sold for profit. "Any way you slice that banana," he said, "that is the sale of marijuana for profit."

Hemp Factory V is not one of the city's more flamboyant dispensaries. It is tucked into a Colorado Boulevard plaza behind a Popeyes and a Pizza Hut. It has no sign, only an American flag decal.

The collective and its operator, Gevork Berberyan, came into Trutanich's sights after a Food and Drug Administration lab tested pot from some dispensaries. The sample from Berberyan's store had one of the highest pesticide levels: 8.5 parts per million of bifenthrin.

An FDA analyst noted that that was 170 times the level allowed for one category of herbs. Berberyan's attorney, Mark Rabinovich, has challenged that comparison, noting that higher levels are allowed in other categories.

Berberyan's dispensary was also one of the City Council's first targets. The council voted to shut it down June 9, when it denied Berberyan's request for a hardship exemption from a moratorium on new dispensaries. The Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council, exasperated at the proliferation of stores, had asked the council to close it.

The city's lawsuit hinges on at least five undercover buys, which it says show that Hemp Factory V is a business.

Undercover buy

In court documents, LAPD Officer Brent Olsen acknowledged that the dispensary appeared to verify his doctor's recommendation. But, he added, he performed no activities that would be typical of a collective. "I simply filled out forms, was quoted a price for marijuana and was able to buy marijuana at that quoted price," he said.

In a bid to show that the dispensary was violating Chalfant's Oct. 30 order, the city attorney said four additional samples have tested positive for pesticide residues, including variations of chlordane, which is banned in the U.S.

Chalfant engaged in an extended discussion with Rabinovich about whether sales should be allowed. The judge said the state Supreme Court's 2008 decision in People vs. Mentch makes it clear that patients and caregivers can collectively cultivate marijuana but not sell it.

Rabinovich argued that the term "cultivation" was ambiguous. The judge agreed, but said that Hemp Factory V was primarily involved in distribution. "You've got the cart before the horse," he said. He agreed Rabinovich could provide more information on how the dispensary cultivates marijuana.

He and Rabinovich also tangled over whether the state's Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic law applied.

Rabinovich said that Hemp Factory V had no ability to comply with the law's requirements to label marijuana and test it for purity. Chalfant responded, "I don't think that's a legal argument."

In his proposed injunction, Chalfant noted, "If Hemp Factory were operating as a true collective, its members would be growing the marijuana and they could avoid inclusion of pesticides."

Asha Greenberg, of the city attorney's office, told Chalfant that the problem for Hemp Factory V was that it was selling marijuana. If it were just growing it like a collective, she said, the law would not apply.

"It would be like if I was growing tomatoes in my backyard and giving them to my friends," she said.

Chalfant asked the lawyers to address the issue at the next hearing.

[email protected]

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
 

richyrich

Out of the slime, finally.
Veteran
The beginning of the end IMO once this goes all the way through the appellate process.
 
B

Blue Dot

In addition to maintaining that sales are illegal, he has also argued that the state's food-and-drug safety law applies to medical marijuana. He reached that conclusion after samples of marijuana from dispensaries, including Hemp Factory V, were found to contain pesticides.

Wow, I like this Trutanich guy, he actually knows what he is talking about.
 
J

JackTheGrower

My apologies to Blue Dot.. I forget that you May not know I have always like your posts even if they were on the humorous side.
You may not know I consider myself friendly in my replies to you Blue Dot.

You see we really do need to be more accepting of different points of view.

---------------------------------


Well that goes against the AG..

Would it be a sale if the members share expenses for the operation?

I mean Cannabis won't grow itself and deliver itself for the right person.

:elf:
 
Last edited:

fatigues

Active member
Veteran
"I don't believe that a storefront dispensary that sells marijuana is lawful," said Judge James C. Chalfant at a hearing on a lawsuit that City Atty. Carmen Trutanich filed Oct. 28 against Hemp Factory

Asha Greenberg, of the city attorney's office, told Chalfant that the problem for Hemp Factory V was that it was selling marijuana.

Chalfant asked the lawyers to address the issue at the next hearing.

If this story is accurate - why would there be a hearing to determine a matter in respect of which the presiding judge has plainly already made up his mind? (Yes - that would be a possible point of appeal, if accurately reported).

I would caution that beat reporters assigned to civil hearings frequently don't understand the intricacies of what's actually going on in front of them and what the issue to be determined by the court really is. Criminal law is pretty straightforward. Civil motions are often clear as mud to non-lawyers.

Though all of this appears to really be efforts to block the sale of marijuana that do not comply with a prior court order regarding pesticides -- and does not need to be decided on the larger point of whether any sale is lawful, as such.

If MMJ is being sold containing banned pesticides even after a prior court order that says "don't do it", I'd say they are pretty much screwed. Flouting court orders when you are selling romaine lettuce is unwise. If it's pot you are selling - it's sheer folly.

And an inability to test it is no excuse at all as for why they were not complying with a prior court order, I would agree with the judge on that.
 
So you like the attorney trying to close down safe access to medication for thousands of patients in that area... I agree that he may be right in this situation (especially after finding pesticides in the samples) but if he's the first guy that pops into your head as somebody you like I feel you may be in the wrong forum.
 

richyrich

Out of the slime, finally.
Veteran
If this story is accurate - why would there be a hearing to determine a matter in respect of which the presiding judge has plainly already made up his mind? (Yes - that would be a possible point of appeal, if accurately reported).

I would caution that beat reporters assigned to civil hearings frequently don't understand the intricacies of what's actually going on in front of them and what the issue to be determined by the court really is. Criminal law is pretty straightforward. Civil motions are often clear as mud to non-lawyers.

I also am somewhat skeptical that the judge proposed an injunction on his own motion.

I guess we'll see.

I was wondering the same thing about why the judge pushed off for another hearing later. But, if the reporters got the following correct, it gives some insight and it ain't good for "sales."

The judge, in forceful comments, said he believes state laws allow collectives only to cultivate and distribute pot.

Chalfant engaged in an extended discussion with Rabinovich about whether sales should be allowed. The judge said the state Supreme Court's 2008 decision in People vs. Mentch makes it clear that patients and caregivers can collectively cultivate marijuana but not sell it.
 
J

JackTheGrower

So.. I need to read this again as I am tired.. But this is why I'm a bit of a hard ass at times.. IcMag is a great place to exchange info.

Even For Blue Dot..
 
B

Blue Dot

If MMJ is being sold containing banned pesticides even after a prior court order that says "don't do it", I'd say they are pretty much screwed.

Trutanich, or the judge, (I can't figure out which) didn't say "banned" pesticides, he said ANY pesticides, meaning legal or not.

Don't know if that was a typo from you or a freudian slip from the kind that likes to twist semantics.

He reached that conclusion after samples of marijuana from dispensaries, including Hemp Factory V, were found to contain pesticides.
 

fatigues

Active member
Veteran
Trutanich, or the judge, I can't figure out which didn't say "banned" pesticides, he said ANY pesticides, meaning legal or not.

In a bid to show that the dispensary was violating Chalfant's Oct. 30 order, the city attorney said four additional samples have tested positive for pesticide residues, including variations of chlordane, which is banned in the U.S.
Yes. But look - this is a civil matter. It's about advocacy, ok? You don't just need to be right on whether or not there has been a violation - you need to WIN on the remedy you want now that the violation has been proved. Injunctions are highly discretionary.

To be effective, you do something like...

Lawyer 1: There were clearly violating your Order of October 30. The new report confirms that in X# of the samples, four pesticides were detected.

Lawyer 2: As the report of the defendant's expert notes at Tab E, your Honour, pesticides are present and detectable in our drinking water. They are on the apple in your Registrar's lunchbag. There was no intent to breach your court order at all. An order which would have the inevitable effect of destroying the business of the defendant and putting "X" people out of work is extraordinarily harsh and the balance of convenience favors the defendant...

Lawyer 1: Your Honour - the pesticide that was found is banned in the United States. It it not present in the water supply. On a balance or probabilities, this marijuana was not grown in the USA, your Honour.

Don't know if that was a typo from you or a freudian slip from the kind that like to twist semantics.
No. It's not semantics. It's the part which notes the important aspects of the case to persaude the judge to make the order requested. It's a banned pesticide in the USA. The leap the City Attorney is inviting the judge to make is to infer that it MUST have originated from outside the USA and so it VERY LIKELY is Cartel weed.

Lawyer 1: "Not only are they not complying with your Order, the Order I am now seeking is fair and just. It's clearly the right thing to do in the circumstances."

Being techinically right on whether they flouted the court's last order isn't good enough Blue Dot. The point is what remedy you want now that you've proven they didn't comply with the last one - and why the judge should feel good about making it.

It's not semantics; it's about WINNING.
 
B

Blue Dot

The point is what remedy you want now that you've proven they didn't comply with the last one - and why the judge should feel good about making it.

The point I was trying to make is that Trutanich is correct when he says "the state's food-and-drug safety law applies to medical marijuana".

I can't believe dispensaries and caregivers can supply a medicine and not believe that they don't have to abide by the state's food and drug safety laws.

That's just insane.
 
J

JackTheGrower

The point I was trying to make is that Trutanich is correct when he says "the state's food-and-drug safety law applies to medical marijuana".

I can't believe dispensaries and caregivers can supply a medicine and not believe that they don't have to abide by the state's food and drug safety laws.

That's just insane.

Actually product safety is really important so I agree with you and in general with testing produce for human consumption.

CCI has language to protect Tax2010 doesn't.

I'm not sure but AB390 doesn't I think.
 
J

JackTheGrower

Am I missing some connect with this.. How can it ban all sales?

Aren't these people the same people that say medical Cannabis is illegal period?
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top