• COVID-19 Resources
  • Administrative Law
  • Liquor Law – ABC – OLCC
  • Employment Law
  • GAMING: Internet & Casino
  • Land Use
  • Personal Injury & Wrongful Death
Call Us Now: 800.405.4222
Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson - SSJ Law
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Administrative Law
    • Alcohol and Liquor Law: ABC | OLCC
    • Employment Law
    • GAMING: Internet & Casino
    • Land Use
    • Personal Injury & Wrongful Death
  • Our Team
  • Articles
  • Community Service
  • Resources
  • Contact Us
    • The Firm
    • AV Rating
    • Client List
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

SSJ Expands into Washington

in News

Expansion to Washington

Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson (“SSJ”) is pleased to announce that Ryan Kroll, a partner in SSJ’s Portland Office, is now licensed to practice in the State of Washington. Last year, SSJ opened a new office in Portland, Oregon and this latest expansion will now allow SSJ to serve its clients’ legal needs in California, Oregon, and Washington.

As we have done for over 40 years in California, SSJ will continue to provide high quality legal representation throughout the Pacific Northwest in practice areas such as serious personal injury matters, business litigation, obtaining and retaining alcohol licenses, land use, employment litigation, administrative law, and Indian gaming and entertainment.

We are excited about this opportunity to serve our clients’ legal needs in Washington and look forward to the opportunity to bring our experience, innovation, and dedication to the Evergreen state.

For legal concerns in Oregon or Washington, please feel free to contact the Portland Office at:

Phone
503.236.8050

Toll Free
800.405.4222

Email
[email protected]

And of course you may continue to contact the Los Angeles office for your legal needs in California at:

Phone
310.822.9848

Toll Free
800.405.4222

Email
[email protected]

0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2013-10-11 06:34:192013-10-11 06:34:19SSJ Expands into Washington

Ridgetop v. E-Z-GO

in News

By Alexa Hyland – Daily Journal Staff Writer

You’ve teed off on the fifth hole of a golf course nestled in the Angeles National Forest in northern Los Angeles County. You’re driving up the hill toward the green, and suddenly your golf cart stops. If your cart stalls like that enough times during rounds, you may want to relinquish your membership and play elsewhere. And that, the owners of the private Lake Elizabeth Golf & Ranch Club said in a lawsuit, is exactly what several members did.

The suit led to a $1.7 million jury verdict against the Augusta, Ga., makers of E-Z-Go golf cars. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Alan Rosenfield granted the award to course owner Ridgetop Ranch Properties on June 6.
The jury found E-Z-Go breached its warranty and fraudulently misrepresented its product, which the company touts as the No. 1 selling golf car in the world. Ridgetop Ranch Properties Inc. v. Jacobsen E-Z-Go, MC013551 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed April 19, 2002).

“The company kept blaming the problems on the golf course, but at the same time E-Z-Go was also getting complaints from other courses,” lead planitiffs’ lawyer Stephen A. Jamieson said. Jamieson, R. Bruce Evans and Ryan M. Kroll of Playa del Rey’s Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson and Tom Ward of Lancaster’s Michelizzi Schwabacher Ward & Bianchi represented Ridgetop in the suit.

Ridgetop owned and operated the golf course until May 2002, when, according to the complaint, the company sold the property at a diminished price of $5.5 million. The plaintiffs asked for compensatory damages in excess of $3.5 million but were awarded $1.67 million with 10 percent post-judgment interest.

At trial, Ridgetop’s lawyers blamed the course’s golf carts for the low sales price. The attorneys said the club bought 80 carts in 1997 after E-Z-Go sales representatives boasted about a unique feature of the carts: a “controller” that sets the speed for easy use on the course’s hilly terrain. Allegedly, five months after the carts were purchased, they began to break down and eventually became inoperable.

Ridgetop’s lawyers claimed Lake Elizabeth Golf & Ranch Club gained a reputation as an unreliable course and suffered a decrease in the number of rounds played, which led to diminished property values. “We asked for compensatory damages because of loss in profits and decreased value of the property,” Jamieson said. “You make money on the rounds of golf you can provide,” he said. “If players can’t get on a course, they ask for their money back.”
“The carts are the lifeblood of a golf course,” he said.

During the trial, E-Z-Go’s lawyer, Michael S. Sutton of Mission Viejo’s Sutton & Murphy, argued the course’s property value dropped after competitive golf courses opened in the Lancaster area. “There was nothing defective with the vehicles,” Sutton said.

Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson are attorneys practicing in the areas of ABC law, ABC Appeals Board cases, and all related Land Use Matters such as City and County Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Police and Fire permits, Entertainment law, and Gambling Law; as well as Business and Personal Injury litigation. Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson can be reached at 800 405 4222.”

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2013-08-08 13:30:572013-08-08 13:30:57Ridgetop v. E-Z-GO

Racketeering Case For Gambling Casino Judgment rendered for over $2,200,000

in News

A client who wanted to purchase operation rights to a popular southland Casino, renowned for its gambling and entertainment offerings, lost hundreds of thousands of dollars of “blood money” as those rights were sold multiple times in alleged back room deals.

These deals were alleged to be between the Casino operator and certain members of the local City Council and Redevelopment Agency.

Stephen Allen Jamieson, and his partners Stephen Warren Solomon, Ralph B. Saltsman and R. Bruce Evans, alleged in the lawsuit that the client had been extorted, defrauded and was made the victim of a conspiracy between several individuals in and out of public office to commit illegal acts.

They based this allegation on their findings through massive efforts in discovery (written requests for information in the lawsuit, called interrogatories, request to produce documents, requests for admissions, and depositions [testimony obtained from witnesses under oath outside of court]) and investigation through the firm’s private investigators.

Jamieson and his partners successfully litigated this case under the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization (“RICO”) federal statutes in Los Angeles Superior Court, a Trial Court, for several years. During the course of litigation, the case went several times from the Trial Court to the Court of Appeal and back to the Trial Court.

Through the perseverance and innovative legal work by Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson we reached a valuable settlement in favor of our client shortly before the jury trial was scheduled to begin, as against some of the Defendants; and resulted in a Judgment against the remaining Defendants for over $2,200,000.

Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson are attorneys practicing in the areas of ABC law, ABC Appeals Board cases, and all related Land Use Matters such as City and County Conditional Land Use Permits, Variances, Police and Fire Permits, Entertainment Law, Gaming Law, as well as Personal Injury litigation. Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson can be contacted at 800-405-4222.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2013-08-08 13:16:052013-08-08 13:16:05Racketeering Case For Gambling Casino Judgment rendered for over $2,200,000

62-year-old Salesperson Fired for having Leukemia is awarded $582,000 by jury

in News

The jury found that the defendant employer acted with malice, oppression and fraud, thus entitling him to punitive damages.

This was an employment discrimination case that also raised issues involving violations of the American Disabilities Act. It was tried by Stephen Allen Jamieson before a jury in Los Angeles Superior Court. The Honorable Ernest Williams presided over this case.

A 62-year-old gentleman was hired by a beverage company to be a route salesperson in the Los Angeles area. Three months after beginning his new job the plaintiff was diagnosed with chronic lymphatic leukemia. At that point in time, he had not yet satisfied his sales quota. He was subsequently fired.

No offer to settle was made prior to the trial. After 1 and ½ days of jury deliberation and after the judge told defendant to settle, the defendants finally made their first offer of $10,000.

The terminated employee rejected the offer. The jury returned with a verdict of $582,000. Based on the unconscionable acts of the employer shown to the jury by Mr. Jamieson throughout the trial, the jury also decided that the employer acted with malice, oppression and fraud, the necessary finding for punitive damages. The case settled the following morning in the courtroom just before the defendant was required to open up its books and records for a determination on the amount of punitive damages. The verdict was paid ten days later.

Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson are attorneys practicing in the areas of ABC law, ABC Appeals Board cases, and all related Land Use Matters such as City and County Conditional Land Use Permits, Variances, Police and Fire Permits, Entertainment Law, Gaming Law, as well as Personal Injury litigation. Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson can be contacted at 800-405-4222.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2013-08-08 13:15:142013-08-08 13:15:1462-year-old Salesperson Fired for having Leukemia is awarded $582,000 by jury

Intertribal Court of Southern California Bar Association Accepts New Members from Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson

in Indian Gaming, News

The Law Firm of Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson is proud to announce the acceptance by the Intertribal Court of Southern California Bar Association of Stephen Warren Solomon, Ralph B. Saltsman, Stephen Allen Jamieson, Bruce Evans, and Ryan Kroll. Each of these lawyers is now permitted to practice law before the Intertribal Court of Southern California. 

The ICSC describes its mission as follows: 

“Empowerment through the effective administration of equal justice for all”

The overall purpose of the ICSC is to provide members of the Native American community and their participating tribes with a cultural sensitive Judicial Forum in which to present and resolve disputes.

The ICSC is an Intertribal Court System, which works on a “circuit court” format whereby a Judge travels from one Reservation to the next presiding over assigned cases. Rulings are based on tribal laws, ordinances, customs and historical precedent. The ICSC provides court administration, court clerks, bailiffs, and case management. Tribal Court hearings are held at their respective Tribes’ Reservations.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2012-12-21 10:08:072012-12-21 10:08:07Intertribal Court of Southern California Bar Association Accepts New Members from Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson

Ex-Slidebar bouncer: I knew Kelly Thomas report was false

in Employment Law, News

Originally published June 13, 2012 by Doug Irving at The Orange County Register

Michael Reeves, center, prepares to read a brief statement flanked by his attorneys, Stephen Allen Jamieson (standing) and Stephen Warren Solomon (right)

Michael Reeves, center, prepares to read a brief statement flanked by his attorneys, Stephen Allen Jamieson
(standing) and Stephen Warren Solomon (right). DOUG IRVING, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

An ex-bouncer who claims he heard the phone call that drew Fullerton police officers to their fatal encounter with Kelly Thomas said Wednesday that the call was bogus and he lost his job fighting it.

Michael Reeves was working the door at the Slidebar Rock-n-Roll Kitchen on the night half a dozen officers took down Thomas, an unarmed, mentally ill homeless man who frequented the area. He claims in a lawsuit that a manager at the Slidebar falsely reported that Thomas was trying to break into cars, setting in motion the events that led to his death.

Slidebar owner Jeremy Popoff confirmed this week that one of his employees did call police that night from her cell phone. He declined to say what she reported, citing the criminal investigation into Thomas’ death, but said a recording of the call has been reviewed by the District Attorney’s Office and other investigators.

Neither Popoff nor the manager named in Reeves’ lawsuit has been charged with filing a false police report, court records show.

Reeves appeared Wednesday at a brief press conference in the Playa del Rey office of his attorneys. He read a short statement and then sat quietly as his attorneys answered questions. “I heard (the manager) report that Kelly Thomas was in the parking lot breaking into cars,” he said in his statement. “I knew her report to be false.”

The Slidebar fired Reeves in September; its attorney says he confronted a manager in front of customers. He claims he was fired for complaining about the police report and talking to the District Attorney’s Office about it. He filed suit late last week, demanding at least $4 million for lost wages and emotional distress, and to punish the Slidebar.

Reeves says in his lawsuit that Thomas was doing nothing more than picking up cigarette butts outside the Slidebar. He claims the Slidebar had a policy of keeping homeless people like Thomas away – a claim Popoff and his attorney refuted as absurd and insulting.

Reeves’ lawsuit claims that the manager who called police that night ensured a quick response by reporting that Thomas was trying to break into cars. Responding officers arrived on scene thinking there was a crime in progress, he says, not just a loitering homeless man.

“Mr. Reeves heard what he heard,” said Stephen Warren Solomon, one of his attorneys. “And he was terminated for doing the right thing.”

An outside investigator hired by Fullerton to look into the events leading up to Thomas’ death included a recording of that initial phone call in his review. The investigator, Michael Gennaco, reported that the caller told a police dispatcher that a man she identified as “Kelly” was roaming the parking lot, looking into cars and “pulling on handles.” Gennaco did not identify the caller in his initial report.

Police have said officers stopped Thomas as they investigated a car break-in report, and that he struggled when they tried to arrest him. A surveillance video captured two officers tackling and then wrestling with Thomas; four other officers join them and hold Thomas down as some officers hit him and at least one shocks him with a Taser.
Thomas died of chest and head injuries five days later. One of the officers, Manuel Ramos, has been charged with second-degree murder. Another, Jay Cicinelli, has been charged with involuntary manslaughter.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2012-06-14 09:35:472012-06-14 09:35:47Ex-Slidebar bouncer: I knew Kelly Thomas report was false

Civil lawsuit alleges false police report in beating death of homeless man

in News, Personal Injury
Former security guard Michael Reeves and his attorneys, Stephen Solomon and Stephen Jamieson.

Former security guard Michael Reeves and his attorneys, Stephen Solomon and Stephen Jamieson.

Originally posted on June 13, 2012 by Michael Martinez at CNN

The police beating of a California homeless man has spawned a civil lawsuit in which a bar doorman claims he was fired after he cooperated with investigators and claimed his manager made a false report to police about the homeless man’s activities.

Michael Reeves, who also worked as a security guard, is suing his former employer, the Slidebar Rock-N-Roll Kitchen in Fullerton, California, for more than $4 million, according to the lawsuit.

Eric Dubin, attorney for Slidebar and Jeremy Popoff, who’s listed in state records as president of Slidebar Inc. that owns the establishment, said Reeves’ claims are “completely false and fabricated.”

Reeves “was simply fired for getting confrontational with a manager after he let girls in a side door,” Dubin said in an e-mail to CNN. “He never mentioned any of these alleged claims to (the) DA when interviewed, during his sworn employment hearings for unemployment, nor in his signed termination papers last year.”

Popoff, who’s also a guitarist and singer in the rock band Lit, is about to release an album, and the “bogus” lawsuit was timed to that release, Dubin charged.

“We will fight this with everything we have,” Dubin said.

According to the suit, Reeves’ manager called police on July 5, 2011, to falsely report that “Kelly Thomas is in the parking lot breaking into cars.”

Councilmen face recall over alleged beating death in California

Thomas, 37, a homeless man with schizophrenia, was severely beaten by Fullerton police and he later died in the hospital. In connection with his death, Officer Manuel Ramos, 37, is charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, and Cpl. Jay Patrick Cicinelli, 39, is charged with involuntary manslaughter and felony use of excessive force. They have pleaded not guilty.

On Wednesday, Reeves issued a statement in which he stated that “a Slidebar manager called Fullerton Police and I heard her report that Kelly Thomas was in the parking lot breaking into cars.

“I knew her report to be false. I complained about that false report that night to my manager and continued to complain about the false report until the date I was terminated, on September 23, 2011,” said Reeves, who was hired in March 2010.

Reeves said in the lawsuit that Thomas wasn’t breaking into cars but rather was in a parking lot picking up cigarette butts.

Reeves refused to adopt his employer’s “false mantra that ‘Slidebar had nothing to do with Kelly Thomas’ death,’ ” said the lawsuit, filed last week.

When managers realized “that they, too, could face legal consequences for their involvement, not to mention the harm it would cause to Slidebar’s and (its owners’) images, they decided to terminate Mr. Reeves to keep him and law enforcement investigators as far away from Slidebar as possible,” the lawsuit said.

Reeves was terminated two days after prosecutors announced they were pursuing criminal charges against Fullerton police officers, the lawsuit said.

According to a review of the Thomas incident by an independent consultant hired by the Fullerton City Council, police received a call from a woman who referred to Thomas as “Kelly” and said he was “roaming the parking lot,” “looking in cars,” “pulling on handles,” and “pacing through the cars and between each car,” the consultant’s report said.

The Orange County District Attorney’s office wasn’t commenting Wednesday on the civil suit’s accusation of a false police report, a spokeswoman said.

“Just in general, we don’t comment on investigations,” chief of staff Susan Kang Schroeder of the district attorney’s office told CNN.

The Slidebar website says the independently owned and operated establishment offers food, drinks and live music.

“We pride ourselves in offering a cool environment, free from idiots. So don’t act like one, or you will be asked to leave — very politely of course. Have fun, rock on, be yourself … just be cool,” the website says.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 solomon https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png solomon2012-06-14 09:20:392012-06-14 09:20:39Civil lawsuit alleges false police report in beating death of homeless man

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Filed Against Sidebar

in News, Personal Injury

Reeves_v._Sidebar_case_no._00575023 (Original PDF Document)

STEPHEN WARREN SOLOMON (State Bar No. 36189)
STEPHEN ALLEN JAMIESON (State Bar No. 115805)
RYAN MICHAEL KROLL (State Bar No. 235204)
D. ANDREW QUIGLEY (State Bar No. 280986)
SOLOMON, SALTSMAN & JAMIESON
426 Culver Boulevard,
Playa Del Rey, California 90293
Telephone: 310.822.9848
Facsimile: 310.822.3512
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MICHAEL REEVES

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 30-2012
Filed June 8, 2012

MICHAEL REEVES, Plaintiff,
Vs.
JEREMY POPOFF: SLIDEBAR INC.
DBA SLIDEBAR ROCK N ROLL KITCHEN
And DOES 1through 50.
Inclusive.
Defendants.
Case No. 00575023

Read more

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2012-06-08 10:02:442012-06-08 10:02:44Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Filed Against Sidebar

2004-2011 Super Lawyers

in News

Super Lawyers Logo

As published in the Los Angeles Magazine and Southern California SuperLawyers February, 2012

Partners group photo

LEFT TO RIGHT: Stephen A. Jamieson*, Stephen Warren Solomon*, Ralph B. Saltsman*, R. Bruce Evans**, Ryan Kroll**
*CHOSEN TO 2012 SUPER LAWYERS **CHOSEN TO 2011 RISING STARS

Location: Los Angeles
Number of attorneys: 11
Phone: (310) 822-9848 / (800) 405-4222
Web: ssjlaw.com

Super Lawyers selects attorneys by peer nominations and third party research to evaluate and recognize professional achievement. Only 5% of Southern California lawyers are chosen to receive this honor.

SOLOMON, SALTSMAN & JAMIESON has been the recognized standard-bearer in obtaining and retaining alcohol licenses for all types of on- and off-site alcohol sellers, as well as practice areas including administrative law, Indian gaming and entertainment, civil litigation, business litigation, serious personal injury matters, government relations and land use planning. The attorneys also host “Legal Help Live™,” a long running, highly rated television broadcast.

For the ninth consecutive year, SOLOMON, SALTSMAN & JAMIESON’s peers have nominated the three founding partners, Stephen Warren Solomon, Ralph B. Saltsman and Stephen Allen Jamieson, to Super Lawyers®. Partners Bruce Evans and Ryan Kroll are recognized in Rising Stars.

SOLOMON, SALTSMAN & JAMIESON is a law firm comprised of passionate, dynamic, successful lawyers, distinguished by their enthusiasm and their innovative approach to prevail over legal obstacles. For more than 45 years, their unique approach has fueled the synergy of the firm, promoted successful collaborative outcomes, and ignited the gusto that has become their trademark.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2012-02-29 11:02:132012-02-29 11:02:132004-2011 Super Lawyers

In a State of Denial About Pot

in Land Use, News

Originally released in the Los Angeles Business Journal

Simply stated, medical marijuana may be property lawfully possessed and obtained, and acquiring, possessing and protecting property is a basic constitutional right in California.

What's in Store: Farmacy marijuana dispensary in Westwood.

What’s in Store: Farmacy marijuana dispensary in Westwood. (RINGO H.W. CHIU/LABJ)

City of L.A.’s ordinance to liit the number of marijuana dispensaries conflicts with state Constitution.

The city of Los Angeles in January 2011 enacted an ordinance that limits the number of medical marijuana dispensaries and requires closure of dispensaries that do not conform with the L.A. law. The ordinance also sets “grandfathering” criteria.

By Ralph B. Saltsman, Stephen Warren Solomon and Stephen Allen Jamieson

At this point, the question is: Does this ordinance disallow access to Californias who qualify to acquire, possess and use medical marijuana? If so, does the ordinance violate the California Constitution and who has standing to mount a challenge?

No municipality can enact and enforce an outright ban of medical marijuana dispensaries. The state Constitution creates an unalienable right to acquire property that is lawfully possessed. Within limited circumstances, marijuana is such lawfully possessed property, and cities cannot prohibit their populace from lawfully acquiring medical marijuana.

In a historical context, the courts have been consistent that where municipal law infringes upon a protected liberty interest, that law must be narrowly drawn. Moreover, it must further a substantial goverment interest of fial as unconstitutional.

Under the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, the people have constitutionally acknowledged rights including “enjoying and defending life” as well as “acquiring, possessing, and protecing property.”

Both of these protected inalienable right delineated above are in play in demonstriating the unconstitutionality of all cooperative medial marijuana dispensaries from within its jurisdictional boundaries. The courts have said zoning laws are not infinite and unchallengeable. Prohibiting constitutionally protected rights cannot be justified on the pretext that the rights may be exercised in some other place.

In discussing medical marijuana, two seperately stated basic constitutional rights come into play: “enjoying and defending life” on the one hand, and “acquiring, possessing, and protecting property” on the other.

In 1996, Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, specifies that “seriously ill Californians” have the right to have “and use marijuana for medical purposes” under defined circumstances. The Legislative Analyst’s Office stated that the proposition provided for medical purposes including relief of pain and easing symptoms of accompanying illness. It seems that the relationship between the purpose of Proposition 215 and the right to enjoy and defind life states and undeniable truth.

Since possession of marijuana is lawful in limited circumstances, after dismissal of an underlying criminal case, an Orange County trial court required the return of previously seized marijuana based upon the principle that lawfully possessed marijuana cannot be seized and kept by the local goverment. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Michael Levinsohn, a criminal defense attorney esperienced in the defense of medical marijuana prosecutuions, confirms that where, as here, a constitutional right is impacted, the criminal charge must be dismissed and the patient’s property returned.

Simply stated, medical marijuana may be property lawfully possessed and optained, and acuiring, possessing and protecting property is a basic constitutional right in California. Statutory prohibitions and sanctions against possessions of parijuana do not apply to patients and caregivers.

Effective Jan. 1, state law allows local regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries. There is no statutory authorization of a complete ban.

While several courts have wrestled with the concept of local ordinances being preempted by state law, no court has discussed the issue of the constitutionality of a ban of medical marijuana as a liberty interest protected by the California Constitution.

It should be noted several other approaches challenging local municipal prohibitions against medical marijueana dispensaries have failed. However, in none of theses cases idid the court analyze the effect of Article 1, Section 1 on consumers’ rights to acquire and possess lawful medical marijuana.

For Example, a Riverside Appellate Court in 2011 upheld Riverside’s ban on marijuana dispensaries. The court rejected a preemption argument stating that state statutes at issue did not disallow a municipality’s ban. The court did not attempt to weigh the effect of Article 1, Section1 on Riverside’s complete ban. The court did not approach the controversy in the contect of protecting a liberty interest. The California Supreme Court has just granted hearings to reivew two key cases where marijuana dispensaries were restricted by situes.

The conflict between medical marinuana dispensaries and municipal control is far from concluded. Many legal theories are yet to be tested, but based on the Supreme Court’s affording protection against total bans of matters involving a liberty interest, any ordinance, including L.A.’s, which explicitly or by application acts as a complete prohibition of medical marijuana clinics must fall.

—

Ralph B. Saltsman, Stephen Warren Solomon and Stephen Allan Jamieson are partners in the law firm of Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson in Los Angeles. Along with their partners who contributed to this article, Bruce Evans and Ryan Kroll, the authors practice in the area of land use, zoning, administrative, personal injury and constitutional law.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2012-02-06 10:15:002012-02-06 10:15:00In a State of Denial About Pot
Page 9 of 11«‹7891011›»

Current Affairs

  • The 21st Century Cures Act – Retrieval of Patient’s Medical Records at No CostApril 22, 2023 - 1:21 am

    The Cures Act, also known as the 21st Century Cures Act, is a federal law enacted in 2016 that aims to improve healthcare in the United States. Under the Cures Act, patients have the right to access and obtain copies of their medical records…

  • Selling Alcohol to a Minor is Not Worth the RiskApril 13, 2023 - 1:01 am

    It can take only one ABC violation to effectively lose your license. In two recent cases, The ABC conditionally revoked and indefinitely suspended liquor licenses…

  • Dozens of Californians cited for allegedly providing alcoholic beverages to minors.March 15, 2023 - 9:11 pm

    During the weekend of March 11th and 12th, 2023 the ABC worked with nearly fifty local law enforcement agencies and departments across California to conduct “shoulder tap” minor decoy operations…

  • Newsweek Legal Insight Team spotlight on Solomon Saltsman and JamiesonOctober 20, 2022 - 8:46 pm

    NEWSWEEK Premier Law Firms
    Solomon Saltsman and Jamieson
    in the spotlight…

  • Title 4. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Proposed RegulationsOctober 15, 2022 - 8:21 pm

    Following relaxed policy regulations during the COVID era, the Department has published a proposed rule change to codify Title 4, Rule 70 which will allow licensed premises to serve and allow consumption of alcoholic beverages in permanent non-contiguous areas separate from the main or primary by public area of the licensed premises. There are restrictions and requirements that licensees should be acquainted with if alcohol service is intended or is ongoing in these non-contiguous areas. Proposed Rule 70 is set out in full herein. There will be a public hearing before the Department on November 1, 2022.

LOS ANGELES

426 Culver Boulevard
Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
Toll Free: 800.405.4222
Los Angeles: 310.822.9848
[email protected]



BAY AREA

315 Montgomery Street
10th Floor
San Francisco, CA  94104
Toll Free: 800.405.4222
[email protected]



PORTLAND

25 NW 23rd Place, Suite 6 #363
Portland, OR 97210
Toll Free: 800.405.4222
Portland: 503.236.8050
[email protected]



Do you have questions?

email or call us at 800.405.4222

Join Our Email List


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: . You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Current Affairs & Latest News

The 21st Century Cures Act – Retrieval of Patient’s Medical Records at No Cost

The Cures Act, also known as the 21st Century Cures Act, is a federal law enacted in 2016 that aims to improve healthcare in the United States. Under the Cures Act, patients have the right to access and obtain copies of their medical records…

Read Full Article

DISCLAIMER

Articles posted on our website, were to the best of our knowledge correct at the time they were written, but laws change continuously so no one should rely on what is written in any article as the current state of the law. The reader should always consult a practicing lawyer for an evaluation of how the current law affects any particular factual situation at the time when it occurs. The badges for AVVO®, Million Dollars Advocates Forum®, Martindale Hubbel AV Preeminent®, SuperLawyers®, and BestLawyers®” have been awarded to various specific attorneys at Solomon Saltsman and Jamieson.  See each attorney’s profile for which badges are specifically assigned to him or her.
Full Site Disclaimer

Copyright © 2018 Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson.

Website design by: wwyou.com

Scroll to top