CV Amalgamated LLC v. City of Chula Vista

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 21, 20253:24-cv-01348California4,176 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

24 A. The State Case 25 In March 2018, the City enacted an ordinance regulating commercial cannabis 26 businesses (the “Ordinance”) and adopted regulations to implement the Ordinance 27 (collectively the “CO&R”). ECF No. 6 ¶ 18. The Ordinance sets forth a procedure to apply 28 for a license to sell cannabis. The City had a maximum of eight licenses for storefront retail cannabis, with two licenses available in each of its four districts for electing City Council members (the “Districts”). ECF No. 7-1 at 3. The license application process is split into two phases. All phase one applications are reviewed by the Finance Director and Police Chief to determine whether the applicant has passed the minimum specified requirements for a license. ECF No. 6 at 4. Applicants approved in phase one are eligible to obtain an application slot for phase two. Applications are scored by Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates (“HDL”), a third-party contractor hired by the City, based on a merit-based system described in the Ordinance. If the number of eligible applicants in phase one exceeds the number of available phase two slots, then…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.