My guess (and it is a guess) is that Cooley is referring to People vs. Mentch.
That was not a decision which turned upon the meaning of collective or cooperative, but instead the meaning of who a "Primary Caregiver" is and, more to the point, who is not a "primary caregiver".
Never mind the collective or cooperative and non-profit debate under SB420 or otherwise. A non-patient, to take advantage of that, has to be a Primary Caregiver. If they are not, they cannot shelter under the CUA or SB420.
Mentch was dealt with as if it interpeted the meaning of Primary Caregiver under both the CUA and SB420. To my eye, it appears that the Supreme Court went too far and essentially applied a definition created by SB420 retroactively to apply the same meaning to the term as it was used in the CUA. This would appear to be judicially dishonest, but...even so, even if the Supreme Court went too far in Mentch, the reality is that the State Supreme Court has the last say on the matter until the legislation (SB420) or the CUA itself is changed.
In other words: even if they are wrong, they are still right in law.
In particular, Mentch held that in order for a someone to be a "primary caregiver" who is able to shelter under the defenses provided by the CUA or SB420,:
"We conclude a defendant asserting primary caregiver status must prove at a minimum that he or she (1) consistently provided caregiving, (2) independent of any assistance in taking medical marijuana, (3) at or before the time he or she assumed responsibility for assisting with medical marijuana."
The relationship is one of close proximity. A spouse, nurse or close family member, generally.
What a Primary Caregiver isn't? It isn't a shopkeeper you walk into and apply to on the spot with a card. Never mind the discussion about collectives, cooperatives or profit not-for-profit. That's wholly secondary to the standpoint of dispensaries. Whether the patient can participate in such a dispensary or not, the owners and bud-tenders cannot claim to be primary caregivers under Mentch. If the defense is not available to them, it does not matter if the patients got together singing Cumbaya every night before having group meetings to discuss how more equitable their Maoist collective could be.
While that might protect the patients, either way, the shopkeeper has no defense under the law as a "primary caregiver".
In short, Mentch means the people running dispensaries who seek to rely upon being a "primary caregiver" as a defense, in the overwhelming majority of cases, are unable to do so.
except it's happening in 13 states! 
