People ex rel. Feuer v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Concurring. — I concur in the result. The trial court, on its own motion, interjected and then misinterpreted the decision in People v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 283 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 192 , 507 P.2d 1400 ] (Jayhill) during the hearing on the People’s motion for summary judgment. In my view, the writ should issue on the People’s petition because Jayhill supports, rather than defeats, the position asserted by the People. I concur *1389 with the majority’s discussion under the subheading People v. Superior Court (Jayhill). No additional legal analysis is required to resolve the petition.

INTRODUCTION

In 2011 and 2012, the People of the State of California, acting by and through the City Attorney of the City of Los Angeles (the People), brought civil *1364 enforcement actions against more than 80 operators and owners of facilities alleged to be selling and distributing marijuana for medicinal purposes in violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, the Health and Safety Code and the state unfair competition law. As remedies for defendants’ conduct, the People sought abatement of continuing public nuisances, permanent injunctions and civil penalties.

The trial court denied the People’s omnibus motion for summary judgment and, in the alternative, summary adjudication, ruling the People had failed to present evidence and argument to support their claims for civil penalties. The trial court based its ruling on its view that claims for penalties made under each of the statutory plans through which the People sought relief are elements of the causes of action alleged. The People filed a petition for writ of mandamus which we now consider at the direction of our Supreme Court.

We hold that the penalties which the People seek are among the remedies available to…