L.A.’s much-contested medical pot ordinance is upheld

A local judge on Friday upheld Los Angeles’ much-contested medical marijuana ordinance, denying motions from 29 medical marijuana dispensaries that had sought to halt enforcement of the law.

The decision is a major victory for the city attorney’s office, which has invested considerable time and expense in defending the law from a phalanx of lawyers working for dispensaries.

Superior Court Judge Anthony J. Mohr, who handles some of the most complex cases in Los Angeles County, held a series of hearings over many months on numerous constitutional challenges raised by the pot collectives. He delved deeply into the issue, studying vaguely worded state medical marijuana laws, a tangle of court cases and exhaustive briefing papers filed by the opposing sides.

“It has been a long wait but well worth it,” said Jane Usher, a special assistant city attorney. “It is absolutely gratifying to have the city’s ordinance validated.”

Aaron Lachant, a lawyer whose firm represents 21 of the dispensaries, said he was disappointed. “We believe the ordinance poses a threat to patient safety,” he said. “We’re exploring our options to invalidate the city’s ordinance, and one of those options does include an appeal.”

In his 26-page opinion denying a preliminary injunction, Mohr rejected all of the arguments raised by collectives, concluding that the local law was properly adopted, provides due process rights, protects patient privacy and does not set up an arbitrary process to limit dispensaries. He also ruled that the city’s dispensaries have no vested rights to continue operating, which Usher called a crucial finding.

“Had that argument prevailed, we would be addressing the claims of more than 200, perhaps as many as 500 collectives,” she said. “I never felt that argument had a shred of credibility.”

Last year, Mohr struck down portions of the city’s first ordinance. The city appealed, but the appellate court has not ruled. The city enacted a second ordinance in January, which drew more lawsuits.

Despite Mohr’s strong endorsement, the City Council will meet Tuesday in closed session to start work on a third version. A state appellate court ruled earlier this month that Long Beach cannot use a lottery to choose dispensaries because the city violated federal law by effectively authorizing the distribution of a drug that is illegal. Los Angeles had planned to hold a lottery to select 100 dispensaries that would be allowed to keep operating.

In his ruling, Mohr declined to take into account the Long Beach decision, noting that it conflicts with other state appellate decisions. “The law appears to be unsettled now, and this court sees no benefit or present need to add to the fray with another ruling,” he wrote. But he noted that the decision, handed down by a Los Angeles-based appeals court, could have a “profound impact” on the city’s ordinance.

Los Angeles and the collectives are also trying to negotiate a settlement. “Our clients are still willing to work with the city to find a reasonable solution,” Lachant said.

Usher said Mohr’s decision denying that dispensaries have a vested right to operate could shape the way the council decides to limit the number of outlets in the city. The ruling could lead the lawmakers to adopt a much simpler ordinance that relies on strict zoning regulations to limit the number of locations.

Regardless of what the council decides to do, Usher said she expects dispensaries to challenge it. “We did become a magnet for massive, voluminous litigation,” she said.

john.hoeffel@latimes.com