Search Books, Presentations, Business, Academics...

Log In | Sign Up
Explore

Compassionate
Apothecary Opinion

STATE OF MICmGAN Info and Rating

IN T H E IS A B E L L A C O U N T Y TRIAL C O U R T

Mark Ranzenberger
STATE O F M IC HIG AN ,

Plaintiff, Like Be the first of your friends to like this.

C as e N o.
10-8488~CZ
v
H on, Paul H . C ham be rlain
BR AN DON M C QU EEN > M ATTH EW
TAYLOR , d lb /a C OM PASS IONATE
A PO TH EC AR Y, L .L .C ., FIL E [
Share & Embed
Defendants. DEC l. 6 2010
COIINJY C L E R K
ISA BEllA C OU NT Y
OPINION AND ORDER M T . P Le A SA N T, M I CH .
ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, More from this user
SHOW~CAUSE ORDER, A ND PRELIMlNARY INJUNCTION

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

O n M ay 1, 20 1 O ~d efe nd an ts s ta rte d a b us in es s th ro u gh w h ic h th ey claim they e ngage in

law ful, m edical m arihuana re lated co nduct pursuant to the M ichigan M edical M arihuana A ct
(MMMA), MeL 333.26421. et. seq. T he MMMA de fine s the p ro te ctio n s a va ila ble fo r
1 p. 1 p. 11 p.
individuals w ho apply to M ichigan's D epartm e nt o f C o m m unity H ealth (M D CH ) to e ngage in
m edical m arihuana re late d co nduct, w hich include s re gis te re d qualify ing patie nts and re giste re d
primary caregivers. D efen d a nt McQueen is a registered qualifying patient,. as well as a
re giste re d prim ary care give r. D efe ndant Tay lo r is a re giste re d primary c are giv er. D e fe nd an ts
le ase lo cke rs o n the ir pre m is e s to o the r re gis tere d qualify ing patie nts and re giste re d prim ary
caregivers, w ho be co me "m em bers > ' o f de fe ndants' busine ss upo n appro ve d applicatio n, w ithin Recent Readcasters
w hich to sto re m edical m arihuana. D efe ndants o nly appro ve an applicant fo r m em bers hip if th e
applicant is a registered qualifying patient or re gis te re d p rim ary caregiver with the MDCH.
O nce an applicant be co me s a m em be r, he o r s he pay s a m e m be rship fee, receives a membership
num ber, m ay lease a lo cker) an d m ay sto re m e dical m arihuana in such lo cke r. T he m e m be rs
the n purchase o r se ll the m e dical m arihuana am o ng o the r m e m be rs. F re que ntly , a re giste re d Add a Comment
primary care give r m em be r re ce ive s pe rm iss io n fro m his o r he r re giste re d qualify ing patie nt to
store such patient's marihuana at defendants' business and to sell s uc h m arih ua na to oth er
m em be rs . T hus, the re giste re d qualifying patient o w ns the m e dical m arihuana at all tim e s. T he
m em be rs de te rm ine the price o f the m arihuana. D efe ndants' busine ss do es no t o wn, purchase . o r
sell an y marihuana; however, defendants collect lo c ke r r en ta l fees, m em be rship fe es, and re ce ive
20% o f the s ale s price pe r transfe r. T he busine s s also pay s a s ale s tax to the S tate o f M ichigan
fo r e ach transfer.
B ecaus e the M M M A pe rm its a spe cific am o unt o f m edical m arihuana a registe re d
q ualify in g p atie nt o r re gis te re d primary caregiver may po ss e ss, de fendants kee p re co rds o f the

01/00 39~d ldno~I~Idl~113H~SI LEEL-Z,U-58E.

1 / 8 Search w ithin document...

 a m ou n t of marihuana in each o f their 27 lockers. Defendants prohibit an y growing or sm oki n g
of the marihuana on their premises. Defendants also refuse to allow any transfer of marihuana
into their lockers from anyone who is not a member> or transfers from the lockers to non-
members.
On July 22, 201 0, plaintiff filed a complaint where it requested that this court enter a
temporary restraining order to enj oin defendants from allegedly violating the MMMA. and
requested a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from operating their business in this
community. This court denied plaintiffs request fo r a temporary restraining order, and
scheduled an evidentiary hearing to determine whether it should issue a preliminary injunction.
Following such hearing on August 18-19, 2010, this court denies plaintiffs request for a
p re l im i na ry i nj un cti o n.

II. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff claims a preliminary injunction is warranted because defendants operate 'their

business contrary to the M M M A and thus, their conduct constitutes a nuisance per se an d a
public nuisance. This court finds otherwise. The decision to issue a preliminary injunction is
within the discretion of th e trial court. M ichigan C oalition of State E mployee Unions v Civil
Service C om m; 465 Mich 212, 217; 634 NW2d 692 (2001). '~'Injunctive relief is an
e xtrao rdinary re me dy that iss ue s o nly w he n Jus tice requires. there is no ade quate re m e d y at law ,
and the re e xis ts a re al and im m ine nt dange r o f irreparable injury .' " Kernen v H om estead D ev
C o, 232 M ich A pp 503, 509; S9 1 N W 2d 369 (1998 ), quo ting Jeffrey v Clinton Twp, 195 M ich
A pp 260, 263-264; 489 NW2d 211 (1992). W h e n making th e d ec is io n to is su e a p re lim in ary
in ju nc tio n, th e c ou rt s ho uld consider th e following factors:

(a) the nature of the interest to be protected, (b) th e relative adequacy to

the plaintiff of injunction and of other remedies. (c) an y unreasonable d elay b y th e
p la in tif f i n b rin gin g suit, (d) an y related misconduct on the part of the plaintiff, (e)
the relative hardship likely to result to defendant if an injunction is granted and to
plaintiff if it is denied, (f) the interests of third persons an d of the public, and (g)
the practicability of framing and enforcing th e order or judgment. [ K e rn en , s upr a
at 514.]

Further, the court must base a need for a preliminary injunction on a particularized showing of
irreparable harm, not a mere apprehension of future injury or damage. M ic hig an C oa litio n,
supra at 225-226; P ontiac F ire F ighters U nion L ocal 376 v C ity of P ontiac) 482 Mich 1,9; 753
N W 2d 5 95. 600 (2008).
M o re o ve r. a nuisan ce pe r se is "an act, o ccupatio n. o r structure w hich is a nuisance at all
times an d under any circumstances. regardless of location or surroundings.') Y p sila nti C h ar te r
T w p v K ircher 281 M icb A pp 251, 269 n 4; 761 N W 2d 761 (2008). A public nuisance is defined
as an "unreasonable interference with a common right enjoyed by th e general public."
Cloverleaf C or C o v P hilli ps Petroleum C o, 213 Mich App 186, 190; 540 NW2d 29 7 (1995). In
Cloverleaf. the Court held:

The term 'unreasonable interference' includes conduct that (1)

0T/EB 391;;1d 1 ~n 08 1 1; ;l 1~ 1 1 ;; 11 13 81 ;; 15 1 LEU-Z,LL-686

1 / 8 Search w ithin document...

 significantly interferes with the public's health. safety, peace. comfort, or
convenience, (2) is proscribed by law, or (3) is known or should have been known
by the actor to be of a continuing nature that produces a permanent Or long-
lasting, significant effect on these rights. A private citizen may file an action for a .
public nuisance against an actor where the individual can show he suffered a type
of harm different from that of the general public. [ld.; Capitol P r op er ti es G r ou p ,
LL C , v 1247 C tr S tr ee t, LLC, 283 Mieh App 422, 427-428; 770 NW2d 105
(2009).]

Further, in order to properly analyze plaintiff's two nuisance claims. this court must
construe the MMMA. "Generally, the primary objective in construing a statute is to ascertain
and give effect to the Legislature's intent." People v R ed d en , _ Mich App _; ~ NW2d _
2 01 0 W L 3 61 17 16. The intent of the Legislature is most reliably evidenced th ro ug h th e w o rd s
used in the statute. Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661,665; 685 NW2d 648 (2004). If the language in
the statute is unambiguous, judicial construction is neither required nor permitted. Nastal v
Henderson & A s so c I nv es tig ati on s, I nc , 471 Mich 112, 7 20 ; 6 91 NW2d 1 ( 20 0 5) . However, if a
statute is ambiguous, judicial construction is appropriate. Adrian School Dlst v Michtgan Pub
S ch oo l E m plo ye es R etir em en t Sy8. 458 Mich 326, 332; 582 NW2d 767 (1998). A statute is
ambiguous "only if it 'irreconcilably confllctfs)' with another provision or when it is equally
susceptible to more than a single meaning," F lu or E nte rp ris es , I nc : 1 1 ' Dep't o f T r ea su ry , 47 7
M ich 170, 177-1 78 n 3; 730 N W 2d 722 (2007) (e mphasis in original), quoting L ansing M ayor v
P ub Service C om m, 47 0 M i ch 154 . 166~6 8 0 NW2d 840 (2004).
MeL 333.26424 states in pertinent part:

(a) A qualifying patient who h a s been issued and possesses a registry

identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any
manner, or denied an y right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty
or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing
board or bureau. for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act,
provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does
no t exceed 2. 5 o un ce s o f u sab le m arih ua na . an d, if the qu alif y ing patient has not
specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate
marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana. plants kept in an enclosed,
locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall
also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry
identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any
manner, OJ denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty
or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing
board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected
th ro u gh th e department's r e gis t ra tio n pr oc e ss with the medical use of marihuana
in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an
amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

01/170 39V'd l dn 08 l V' I d l V'1 13 8V'SI LESL-UL-585

(I) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to

whom he or she is connected through the department's registration
p ro c es s ; a nd

(2 ) fo r e ach re gis te re d q ua lify in g p atie nt w ho ha s specified that the

2 / 8 primary caregiver will b e allowed under state Search w ithin
law to marihuana
document...
cultivate
for the qualifying patient. 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked
 (3) any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary

caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act
if the q u al if y in g patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; an d

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not

exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption m ay be
rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana w as not for the
purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical
condition or symptoms associated with th e debilitating medical condition,
in accordance with this act.

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs

associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of
marihuana. A ny such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled
substances,

. . .. .. 'I<

(h) Any marihuana, marihuana paraphernalia, or licit property that is

possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marihuana, as
allowed under this act, or acts incidental t o such use) shall not be seized O r
forfeited.

(i) A person s hall no t be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any

manner, or denied an y right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty
or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing
board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of
marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying
patient with using Of administering marihuana.

,MeL 333.26424(a) and (b) define the protections enjoyed by a qualifying patient and
primary caregiver for th e "medical u se" of marihuana. MeL 333.26423(e) provides a broad

0 1 /9 0 3 ~ 'v'd l ~ n oo l ' v 'I ~ l ' v' l l 3 H ' v' SI LfEL-UL-686

de finitio n o f "m edical use " o f m arihuana as fo llo ws :

'M e dical use ' m eans the acquis itio n, po sse ssio n, cultivatio n, m anufacture ,
use, internal p os se ss io n, d elive ry , transfer, o r transportation of marihuana or
p ara phe rna lia re lating to th e adm inistratio n o f m arihuana to tre at o r alle viate a
r eg is te re d q ua lify in g patient's de bilitating m e dical co nditio n o r sy m pto m s
as so ciate d w ith the de bilitating m edic al co nd itio n.

MeL 333.26424(a) and (b) also limit the pe rm is sib le am o unts of marihuana a registered
qualify ing patie nt o r a re giste re d prim ary care give r m ay possess. T he re gis te re d primary
care give r's pe rm iss ible am ount to po ss ess is furthe r lim ite d to an am o unt he o r she po sse sse s fo r
"as sis ting a qualify ing patie nt to w ho m he o r she is co nne cte d ... " M e L 333.26424(b).
Mo r e ov e r. a r e gis te r ed prim ary care give r m ay receive co mpe nsatio n fo r co sts he o r she incurs
3"with
/ 8 Search w ithin document...
assisting a registered qualifying patient in th e medical use of marihuana." MeL
333.26424(e ). A dditio nally , the L egislature cre ate d a pre sum ptio n that a re gis te re d q ua lify in g
 patie nt o r re giste re d prim ary care give r is e ngage d in the m edical use o f m arihuana pursuant to
the M M M A . MeL 333.26424(d). In o rde r to re but such pre sum ptio n, a party m ust pre se nt
"e vide nce th at co ndu ct re late d to m arihu an a w as no t fo r the pu rpo se o f alle viating the q ualify ing
patie nt's de bilitating m edical co nditio n o r sy m pto ms as so ciate d w ith the de bilitating m edical
co nditio n, in ac co rdan ce with this act." MeL 333.26424(d)(2). Finally, MeL 333.26424(i)
pro te cts a "pe rso n" fro m pe nalty in any m anne r "fo r a ss is tin g a re gis te re d q ualify ing pa tie nt with
using o r administering marihuana."
In this case, defendants claim they law fully o pe rate the ir business pursuant to the
M M 11A . T his co urt agre e s. T he partie s do no t dispute that b oth d efe nda nts p ro pe rly ac quire d
re gistry ide ntificatio n cards as care give rs, o r that de fe ndant M c Q ue en p ro p erl y a cq uir ed hi s
registry card as a qualifying patie nt. The re fo re . de fe ndant T aylo r m ay po ss e ss 2.5 o unce s o f
useable marihuana and 12 e nclo se d and lo cke d m arihuana plants fo r e ach qualify ing patie nt to
w ho m he is co nne cte d thro ugh the de partm e nt's re gistratio n pro ce ss. MeL 333.26424(b).
L ike wise , de fe ndant M c Que en m ay po sse ss am ounts o f m arihuana as a prim ary care give r) but
m ay also pe rso nally po sse ss 2.5 o unce s o f use able m arihuana an d if he cho ose s no t to de s ignate
a primary care give r, 12 e nclo se d and lo cke d m arihuana plants) be cause he is a re giste re d
q u al if y in g p a ti e nt . M e L 3 33 .2 64 24 (a ,) and (b). T he re co rd re ve als that de fe ndants ) thro ugh the ir
busine ss, allo w o nly re giste re d qualify ing patie nts an d re giste re d prim ary care give rs to le ase
lockers within their premises. The registered qualifying patients and registered primary
care give rs po ss e ss m arihuana w ithin such lo cke rs and o nly in am o unts pe rm issible unde r the
M 1 v l M A . W hile de fe ndants o w n the pre m ise s . de fe ndants do no t OWIl, purchase . o r se ll the
m arihuana. T he re fo re , this co urt finds that de fe ndants do no t po sse ss am o unts o f m arihuana
prohibited by th e M M M A .
Further, the re giste re d qualifying patie nts and re giste re d care give rs pe rfo rm m edical use
o f the m arihu an a by trans fe rring the m arihuana w ithin the lo cke rs to o th er re gis te re d q ua lif yin g
patients an d registered primary care give rs. T ho ugh the M M M A state s that a prim ary caregiver
m ay o nly assist a qualifying patie nt "to w ho m he o r she is co nne cte d tho ugh the de partm e nt's
r eg is tr at io n p ro c es s with the m edical use o f m arihuana," the M :M M A furthe r allows a r e gi st er e d
p ri ma ry c ar eg iv e r to re ce ive co mpe nsatio n fo r co sts incurre d to as sis t "a re gis te re d qua lify ing
p atie nt in th e m ed ical u se o f m arih uan a." MeL 333.26424(b) and (e ). Thus, this co urt finds that

01/90 391:7d 1~n08l l ;j I~ l I :7 l l 3 8 1 : 7 S1 LEEL-Z,LL-585

an am biguity e xists be tw ee n subse ctio n (b) and (e ) be cause o n th e o ne hand, a prim ary care give r
m ay o nly assist a qualifying patie nt w ho re gis te re d such care give r, and o n th e o the r. the sam e
prim ary care give r s e e m ingly m ay re ce ive co m pe nsatio n fo r co sts fo r assisting any qualify ing
patient because the Legislature failed to direct that th e compensation may only c o m e from the
qualify ing patie nt w ho re giste re d such care give r. T hus, w he n de fe ndants co lle ct lo cke r re ntal
f ee s, m e m be rs hip fees, a nd re ce iv e 20% o f the s ale price pe r transfe r be tw ee n m em be rs , the y
actually receive "compensation tor c o sts a ss o cia te d with assisting a re gis te re d q ua lify in g p atie nt
in the m edical use o f m arihuana" be cause the ir members a re s ole ly re gis te re d qu alify ing p atie nts .
MeL 333.26424(e ). Eve n m o re am biguo us, "a pe rso n" is no t subje ct to an y p en alty fo r a ss is tin g
a re giste re d qualify ing patie nt w ith "using o r adm iniste ring m arihuana." MeL 333.26424(i}.
T he L e gislature did no t pro vide de finitio ns o f "using" o r "adm iniste ring" m arihuana, but did
place s uch te nus "W ithin the de finitio n o f pe rm issible "m e dical use " o f m arihuana. MeL
333.26423(e ). F urthe r, the M M M A is abso lute ly sile nt as to patie nt-to -patie nt transfe rs o r
de live rie s be tw ee n re gis te re d qualify ing patie nts o f m e dical m arihuana, as in this case . T he
M M M A do e s no t m andate o r pro vide a pro ce ss by w hich re giste re d qualify ing patie nts m ay
acquire m arihuana, no r do e s it prohibit an y m e dical use o f m arihuana be tw e e n re giste re d
q ualify ing p atie nts , as id e fro m th e pro hibitio ns set fo rth in M eL 333.26427, w hich do no t apply
in this case . Se e MeL 333.26423(e ); s e e also MeL 3 33 .2 64 24 (k .) a nd MeL 333.26427.
T he re fo re , this co urt finds that in such am biguity. the pre sum ptio n se t fo rth b y t he L e g is la tu re in
M e L 333.26424(d) be co me s e mine ntly important.
4 / 8 A s s tate d abo ve , the MeL 3 33 .2 64 24 (d ) p ro v id e s: Search w ithin document...
 (d) There shall be a presumption that a qualil)dng patient o r primary
care give r is e ngage d in the m e dical use o f m arihuana in acco rdance w ith this act
if the q ua lify in g p atie nt o r p rim ary care give r:

(1) is in po ss es sio n o f a re gis try id en tifica tio n ca rd; an d

(2) is in po sse ss io n o f an am o unt o f m arihuana that do e s no t

e xce e d the am o unt allo w e d unde r this act. T he pre sum ptio n m ay be
rebutted by evidence that c on du ct re la te d to marihuana wa s no t fo r the
purpo se o f alle viating the qualify ing patie nt's de bilitating m e dical
co nditio n o r sy mpto ms ass ociate d with th e d eb ilita tin g m e dic al c on ditio n,
in acco rdance w ith this act.

D e fe ndan ts pre su ma bly e ng age in "m edical use " o f m arihuana be cause they po ss es s the re gis try
identification cards an d be cause the y po sse ss an am o unt o f m arihuana that do e s not e xce ed the
am o unt allo we d unde r the M M M A . F ollo w ing th e e vid en tia ry h ea rin g. p la in tif f fa ile d to provide
a n y e vide nce that de fe ndants' m edical m arihuana re late d co nduct w as no t fo r the purpo se o f
alle viating any qualify ing patie nt's de bilitating m edical co nditio n o r sy mpto ms as so ciate d w ith
th e d eb ilitating m edic~ c ond itio n. In fact, the e vide nce re ve ale d that de fe ndants no t o nly
p ro vid e s erv ice s a im ed at alle viating the de bilita tin g m edic al co nditio ns o f re gis te re d qualifying
patie nts. but also te stim pny fro m se ve ral re giste re d qualify ing patie nts, w ho w e re m e m be rs o f
de fe ndants ' bus ine ss , re ~e a1 ed that de fe ndants' co nduct actually assiste d t h e m . with alleviating
t he i r d e bi li ta ti ng medici! co nditio ns. S uch w itne sse s te stifie d that the y phy sically co uld no t
I
I
6

I~H!L0 3 9 ' V d 1 ~n 08 l 'V I~ l ' Vl l3 8' VS I LSEL-Z,LL-585

handle t h e narcotics their doctors prescribed for the pain associated with their ailments. They
further described the difficulties in acquiring medical marihuana from sources besides
defendants' business because often. such primary caregivers cannot be trusted an d frequently
possess inconsistent amounts of marihuana because it can be difficult to grow and harvest. The
compensation defendants receive is the direct result of the costs associated with assisting
registered qualifying patients w ho frequent defendants' business. The Legislature specifically
stated that such compensation is not the sale of controlled substances. MeL 333.24624(e).
Defendants. clearly qualify as persons under the MMMA, and are not subject to an y penalty
"solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with
this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana,"
MeL 333.26424(i). Therefore, when defendants are solely in the presence or vicinity of the
medical use of marihuana, as provided by the MMMA, or assist their members with th e use or
administration of marihuana on their premises, they are acting within the provisions of the
MMMA. MeL 333.26424(i). This court also notes that plaintiff failed to provide an y evidence
that defendants pe rm itte d any m em ber. o r any person fo r that matter, to us e m edical m arihu an a
as prohibited by MeL 333.26424(k) an d MeL 333.26427. For example, defendants do not
permit their m emb ers to sell medical marihuana. to any non-registered qualifying patient on
defendants' premises, or to smoke or ingest the marihuana on their premises, and then operate a
vehicle under the influence.
This court ackno w le dges the fe ar that defendants operate a dispensary of marihuana,
where individuals can walk in . select from a variety of marihuana purchased from an y source,
sample the marihuana, and leave such dispensary with medical marihuana.. See R e d d en , s u pr a,
(O'CONNELL, 1.) This court notes that it does not find that such dispensaries are allowed
pursuant to the MMMA. mainly because such issue is not before the court. This court is charged
with determining whether th e patient-to. patient transfers in this case are considered medical use
of marihuana, as permitted by th e MMMA. Further, the record reveals that only registered
qualified patients or registered primary caregivers make such transfers as members of
5de fendants'
/ 8 bus iness . M em bers place their m arihuana in defendants'
Search w ithinlockers, and the m emb ers
document...
transfer or deliver the marihuana pursuant to th e MMMA.. Even when a registered primary
 authorization of the patient to whom he or she is registered, The Legislature did not prohibit
such transfers, and such registered primary caregiver conceivably serves as a person who assists.
a registered qualified patient with using or administering marihuana. MeL 333.26424(i).
Therefore) th e ultimate issue before this court is whether the presumption listed in MeL
333.26424(d) applies and pertains to the patient-to-patient medical use of marihuana in this case.
T his c ou rt finds that it d oes.
Accordingly. this court finds that the patient-to-patient transfers and deliveries of
marihuana between registered qualifying patients faU soundly within medical use of marihuana
as defined by the MMMA. This court also fin ds th at because the Legislature provided the
presumption of medical use of marihuana in MeL 333.26424(d), it intended to permit such
patient-to-patient transfers and deliveries of marihuana between registered qualifying patients in
order tor registered qualifying patients to acquire permissible medical marihuana to alleviate
their debilitating medical conditions and then respective symptoms. Essentially, defendants
assist with the administration and usage of medical marihuana, which th e Legislature permits
unde r the M M M A.

01/80 39'v1d l dn 08 l 'v l l d l ' v I l l 3 8 ' v 1 S1 LEEL-GU-686

T hus, this co urt finds that de fe ndants) acts, o ccupatio n, o r structure is no t a nuisance at
all tim es and unde r any circum stance s. Ypsilanti, supra. D e fe ndants o nly o pe rate the ir bus ine ss
during de signate d busine ss ho urs, and as de cide d abo ve , pe rfo rm the ir m edical m arihuana re late d
conduct pursuant to the MNlMA. Therefore. their business does not constitute a . nuisance per se.
F urthe r, de fe ndants ' bus ine ss is no t an "unre as onable inte rfe re nce with a co mm on right e njo ye d
by th e g e ne ra l p ub li c. " Cloverleaf, supra. F irst, de fe ndants do no t inte rfe re with th e p ub lic 's
he alth o r safe ty be caus e they operate their business w ith in the provisions o f the M 1v1M A ) which a
m ajo rity o f the M ichigan public vo te d to e nact. A dditio nally , the re co rd re ve als that de fe ndants'
b us in es s a ctu ally promoted th e health and safe ty o f the re giste re d qualifying patie nts w ho
fre que nt such busine ss to alle viate the ir de bilitating m edical co nditio ns and the ir re spe ctive
sy m pt om s. Secondly, this co urt fo und that de fe ndants did no t o pe rate the ir busine s s as
proscribed by law; more s pe cific ally . de fe nd ants o pe rate their business as permitted by the
M M M A. D e fe ndants te stifie d, and the re co rd co nfirm s, that the y kne w o f the M M M A and
de signe d and o pe rate the ir busine ss pursuant to its pro visio ns . T he re fo re , this co urt finds that
d efe nd an ts ' b us in es s is no t a public nuis ance .
Finally, this co urt m ust de te rm ine w he the r to is sue a pre lim in ary in ju nctio n fo llo w in g its
findings abo ve . T he nature o f th e interest in th is c as e is s ta tu to r y, p ro m u lg at ed in the M 1 1M A .
W h ile an injunctio n m ay be ade quate fo r plaintiff's requested re lie f, the M M M A als o lis ts o ilie r
re me die s available to plaintiff pursuant to MeL 333.26424(k). T his co urt finds that p la in tif f d id
n o t u nr ea so n ab ly d e la y f il in g this actio n and did no t e xhibit any type o f m isco nduct o f its part.
D efe ndants w o uld suffe r a gre at hardship if this co urt e njo ine d the m fro m o pe rating the ir
busine ss be cause no t o nly w o uld the y lo se the ir busine ss and pro pe rty , bu t they w ould s uffe r
s uch lo ss de spite co nfo rm ing to the law s o f this state . Plaintiff's hardship w ould be m inim al if
this co urt de nie d its' re que s t be cause this co urt fo und that de fe ndants do no t o pe rate the ir
busine ss as a nuis ance pe r se o r a public nuisance . T he public o w ns a large inte re st in this case
be cause the sam e public vo te d to e nact the M M M A . w hich le nds suppo rt fo r its inte re st in
pro viding a s yste m by w h ic h re gis te re d qualifying patients m ay e ngage in the m e dical use o f
m arihuana to alle viate the ir de bilitating m edical co nditio ns an d s y mp to m s a ss o cia te d with such
co nditio ns. A cco rdingly , this co urt de nie s plaintiffs re que st fo r a pre lim inary injunctio n in this
case.

TH ERE F ORE IT IS O RD ERE D that plaintiff's re que st fo r a preliminary in ju nc tio n is d en ie d.

T his o rde r re so lve s the last pe nding claim and clo se s the cas e .w ithin document...
Search
6 / 8
 D ate : D ece mbe r 16,2010 ~i.~ HOD. Paul H. Ch8IDb1llOPi ~
C h ie f J ud ge
Is abe lla C ounty T rial C ourt

0 1 /50 38ltd 1~n08l l t I~ l I t l l3 H l tS I LEU -'(,U -585

Search Books, Presentations, Business, Academics...

Follow Us! scribd.com/scribd tw itter.com/scribd facebook.com/scribd

About Press Blog Partners Scribd 101 Web Stuff Scribd Store Support FAQ Developers / API Jobs Terms Copyright Privacy

Copyright © 2011 Scribd Inc. Language: English

7 / 8 Search w ithin document...