City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc.

Opinion

The issue in this case is whether California’s medical marijuana statutes preempt a local ban on facilities that distribute medical marijuana. We conclude they do not.

Both federal and California laws generally prohibit the use, possession, cultivation, transportation, and furnishing of marijuana. However, California statutes, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CUA; Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5,1 added by initiative, Prop. 215, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996)) and the more recent Medical Marijuana Program (MMP; § 11362.7 et seq., added by Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 2, p. 6424) have removed certain state law obstacles from the ability of qualified patients to obtain and use marijuana for legitimate medical purposes. Among other things, these statutes exempt the “collectiveQ or cooperative[] . . . cultivation]” of medical marijuana by qualified patients and their designated caregivers from prosecution or abatement under specified state criminal and nuisance laws that would otherwise prohibit those activities. (§ 11362.775.)

The California Constitution recognizes the authority of cities and counties to make and enforce, within their borders, “all local, police, sanitary, and *738other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) This inherent local police power includes broad authority to determine, for purposes of the public health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate uses of land within a local jurisdiction’s borders, and preemption by state law is not lightly presumed.

In the exercise of its inherent land use power, the City of Riverside (City) has declared, by zoning ordinances, that a “[mjedical marijuana dispensary” (boldface omitted)—“[a] facility where marijuana is made available for medical purposes in accordance with” the CUA (Riverside Mun. Code (RMC), § 19.910.140)2—is a prohibited use of land within the city and may be abated as a public nuisance. (RMC, §§ 1.01.110E, 6.15.020Q, 19.150.020 & table 19.150.020A.) The City’s ordinance also bans, and declares a nuisance, any use that is prohibited by federal or state law. (RMC, §§ 1.01.110E, 6.15.020Q, 19.150.020.)

Invoking these provisions, the City brought a nuisance action against a facility operated by defendants. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction against the distribution of marijuana from the facility. The Court of Appeal affirmed the injunctive order. Challenging the injunction, defendants urge, as they did below, that the City’s total ban on facilities that cultivate and distribute medical marijuana in compliance with the CUA and the MMP is invalid. Defendants insist the local ban is in conflict with, and thus preempted by, those state statutes.

As we will explain, we disagree. We have consistently maintained that the CUA and the MMP are but incremental steps toward freer access to medical marijuana, and the scope of these statutes is limited and circumscribed. They merely declare that the conduct they describe cannot lead to arrest or conviction, or be abated as a nuisance, as violations of enumerated provisions of the Health and Safety Code. Nothing in the CUA or the MMP expressly or impliedly limits the inherent authority of a local jurisdiction, by its own ordinances, to regulate the use of its land, including the authority to provide that facilities for the distribution of medical marijuana will not be permitted to operate within its borders. We must therefore reject defendants’ preemption argument, and must affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Medical marijuana laws.

The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA; 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.) prohibits, except for certain research purposes, the possession, distribution, *739and manufacture of marijuana. (Id., §§ 812(c) (Schedule I, par. (c)(10)), 841(a), 844(a).) The CSA finds that marijuana is a drug with “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” (21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(B)), and there is no medical necessity exception to prosecution and conviction under the federal act (United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483, 490 [149 L.Ed.2d 722, 121 S.Ct. 1711]).

California statutes similarly specify that, except as authorized by law, the possession (§ 11357), cultivation, harvesting, or processing (§ 11358), possession for sale (§ 11359), and transportation, administration, or furnishing (§ 11360) of marijuana are state criminal violations. State law further punishes one who maintains a place for the purpose of unlawfully selling, using, or furnishing, or who knowingly makes available a place for storing, manufacturing, or distributing, certain controlled substances. (§§ 11366, 11366.5.) The so-called “drug den” abatement law additionally provides that every place used to unlawfully sell, serve, store, keep, manufacture, or give away certain controlled substances is a nuisance that shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered. (§ 11570.) In each instance, the controlled substances in question include marijuana. (See §§ 11007, 11054, subd. (d)(13).)

However, California’s voters and legislators have adopted limited exceptions to the sanctions of this state’s criminal and nuisance laws in cases where marijuana is possessed, cultivated, distributed, and transported for medical purposes. In 1996, the electorate enacted the CUA. This initiative statute provides that the state law proscriptions against possession and cultivation of marijuana (§§ 11357, 11358) shall not apply to a patient, or the patient’s designated primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the patient’s personal medical purposes upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. (§ 11362.5, subd. (d).)

In 2004, the Legislature adopted the MMP. One purpose of this statute was to “[ejnhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects.” (Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1(b)(3), pp. 6422, 6423.) Accordingly, the MMP provides, among other things, that “[qualified patients . . . and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients . . . , who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under [s]ection 11357 [(possession)], 11358 [(cultivation, harvesting, and processing)], 11359 [(possession for sale)], 11360 [(transportation, sale, furnishing, or administration)], 11366 [(maintenance of place for purpose of unlawful sale, use, or furnishing)], 11366.5 [(making place available for *740purpose of unlawful manufacture, storage, or distribution)], or 11570 [(place used for unlawful sale, serving, storage, manufacture, or furnishing as statutory nuisance)].” (§ 11362.775.)

The CUA and the MMP have no effect on the federal enforceability of the CSA in California. The CSA’s prohibitions on the possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana remain fully enforceable in this jurisdiction. (Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1 [162 L.Ed.2d 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195].)

B. Riverside’s ordinances.

As noted above, the Riverside ordinances at issue declare as a “prohibited use” within any city zoning classification (1) a “[m]edical marijuana dispensary” (boldface omitted)—defined as “[a] facility where marijuana is made available ... in accordance with” the CUA—and (2) any use prohibited by state or federal law. (RMC, §§ 19.910.140, 19.150.020 & table 19.150.020A.) The RMC further provides that any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of the ordinance is a public nuisance which may be abated by the city. (RMC, §§ 1.01.110E, 6.15.020Q.)

C. The instant litigation.

Since 2009, defendant Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (Inland Empire), has operated a medical marijuana distribution facility in Riverside. Defendants Meneleo Carlos and Filomena Carlos (the Carloses) are the owners and lessors of the Riverside property on which Inland Empire’s facility is located. Their mortgage on the property is financed by defendant East West Bancorp, Inc. (Bancorp). Defendant Lanny Swerdlow is the lessee of the property, and defendant Angel City West, Inc. (Angel), provides the property with management services. Swerdlow is also a registered nurse and the manager of an immediately adjacent medical clinic doing business as THCF Health and Wellness Center (THCF). Though THCF has no direct legal link to Inland Empire, the two facilities are closely associated, and THCF provides referrals to Inland Empire upon patient request. Defendant William Joseph Sump II is a board member of Inland Empire and the general manager of Inland Empire’s Riverside facility.

In January 2009, the planning division of Riverside’s Community Development Department notified Swerdlow by letter that the definition of “medical marijuana dispensary” in Riverside’s zoning ordinances “is an all-encompassing definition, referring to all three types of medical marijuana facilities, a dispensary, a collective and a cooperative,” and that, as a consequence, “all three facilities are banned in the City of Riverside.” In May 2010, the City filed a complaint against the Carloses, Bancorp, Swerdlow, *741Angel, THCF, Sump, and various Doe defendants for injunctive relief to abate a public nuisance. Inland Empire was later substituted by name for one of the Doe defendants. The complaint alleged that defendants were operating a “medical marijuana distribution facility” in violation of the zoning provisions of the RMC.3

Thereafter, the City moved for a preliminary injunction against operation of Inland Empire’s facility.4 After a hearing, the trial court granted the preliminary injunction, prohibiting defendants and all persons associated with them, during the pendency of the action, from using, or allowing use of, the subject property to conduct “any activities or operations related to the distribution of marijuana.”

*742The trial court found the case was controlled by City of Claremont v. Kruse (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1153 [100 Cal.Rptr.3d 1] (Kruse), which held that cities may abate, as nuisances, uses in violation of their zoning and licensing regulations, and that neither the CUA nor the MMP preempts local zoning and licensing regulation of facilities that furnish, distribute, or make available medical marijuana-—including, in Kruse itself, a moratorium on all such facilities within city boundaries. Moreover, though the court insisted it was not holding that federal prohibitions on the possession, distribution, or cultivation of marijuana preempted state medical marijuana laws, it nonetheless concluded that Riverside “[could] use its . . . zoning regulations to prohibit the activity [of dispensing medical marijuana] especially given the conflict between state and federal laws.”

The Court of Appeal affirmed the order. The appellate court agreed with defendants that the City could not assert federal preemption of state law as authority for its total ban on medical marijuana dispensing facilities. However, the court rejected defendants’ argument that Riverside’s zoning prohibition of such facilities was preempted by state law, the CUA and the MMP. In the Court of Appeal’s view, Riverside’s provisions do not duplicate or contradict the state statutes concerning medical marijuana, nor do they invade a field expressly or impliedly occupied by those laws.

We granted review. We now conclude the Court of Appeal’s judgment must be affirmed.

DISCUSSION5

A. Principles of preemption.

As indicated above, “[a] county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) “Land use regulation in California historically has been a function of local government under the grant of police power contained in article XI, section 1 ... . ‘We have recognized that a city’s or county’s power to control its own land use decisions derives from this inherent police power, not from the delegation of authority by the state.’ ” (Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1151 [45 Cal.Rptr.3d 21, 136 P.3d 821], fn. omitted *743(Big Creek Lumber Co.).) Consistent with this principle, “when local government regulates in an area over which it traditionally has exercised control, such as the location of particular land uses, California courts will presume, absent a clear indication of preemptive intent from the Legislature, that such regulation is not preempted by state statute.” (Id., at p. 1149; see IT Corp. v. Solano County Bd. of Supervisors (1991) 1 Cal.4th 81, 93 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 513, 820 P.2d 1023].)

However, local legislation that conflicts with state law is void. (E.g., Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 897 [16 Cal.Rptr.2d 215, 844 P.2d 534] (Sherwin-Williams Co.).) “ ‘A conflict exists if the local legislation “ ‘duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication.’ ” ’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.)

“Local legislation is ‘duplicative’ of general law when it is coextensive therewith. [Citation.]

“Similarly, local legislation is ‘contradictory’ to general law when it is inimical thereto. [Citation.]

“Finally, local legislation enters an area that is ‘fully occupied’ by general law when the Legislature has expressly manifested its intent to ‘folly occupy’ the area [citation], or when it has impliedly done so in light of one of the following indicia of intent: ‘(1) the subject matter has been so folly and completely covered by general law as to clearly indicate that it has become exclusively a matter of state concern; (2) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action; or (3) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law, and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit to the’ locality. [Citations.]” (Sherwin-Williams Co., supra, 4 Cal.4th 893, 897-898; see Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 853, 860-861 [118 Cal.Rptr.2d 746, 44 P.3d 120] (Great Western Shows); California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 52 Cal.4th 177, 188 [127 Cal.Rptr.3d 726, 254 P.3d 1019].)

The “contradictory and inimical” form of preemption does not apply unless the ordinance directly requires what the state statute forbids or prohibits what the state enactment demands. (Big Creek Lumber Co., supra, 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1161; Great Western Shows, supra, 27 Cal.4th 853, 866; Sherwin-Williams Co., supra, 4 Cal.4th 893, 902.) Thus, no inimical conflict will be found where it is reasonably possible to comply with both the state and local laws.

*744In addition, “[w]e have been particularly ‘reluctant to infer legislative intent to preempt a field covered by municipal regulation when there is a significant local interest to be served that may differ from one locality to another.’ ” (Big Creek Lumber Co., supra, 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1149, quoting Fisher v. City of Berkeley (1984) 37 Cal.3d 644, 707 [209 Cal.Rptr. 682, 693 P.2d 261].) “ ‘The common thread of the cases is that if there is a significant local interest to be served which may differ from one locality to another then the presumption favors the validity of the local ordinance against an attack of state preemption.’ ” (Big Creek Lumber Co., supra, at p. 1149, quoting Gluck v. County of Los Angeles (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 121, 133 [155 Cal.Rptr. 435].)

B. The CUA and the MMP do not preempt Riverside’s ban.

When they adopted the CUA in 1996, the voters declared their intent “[t]o ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes” upon a physician’s recommendation (§ 11362.5, subd. (b)(1)(A)), “[t]o ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction” (id., subd. (b)(1)(B)), and “[t]o encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need” of the substance (id., subd. (b)(1)(C)).

But the operative steps the electorate took toward these goals were modest. In its substantive provisions, the CUA simply declares that (1) no physician may be punished or denied any right or privilege under state law for recommending medical marijuana to a patient (§ 11362.5, subd. (c)), and (2) two specific state statutes prohibiting the possession and cultivation of marijuana, sections 11357 and 11358 respectively, “shall not apply” to a patient, or the patient’s designated primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the patient’s personal medical use upon a physician’s recommendation or approval (§ 11362.5, subd. (d)).

When it later adopted the MMP, the Legislature declared this statute was intended, among other things, to “[c]larify the scope of the application of the [CUA] and facilitate the prompt identification of qualified [medical marijuana] patients and their designated primary caregivers” in order to protect them from unnecessary arrest and prosecution for marijuana offenses, to “[p]romote uniform and consistent application of the [CUA] among the counties within the state,” and to “[e]nhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects” (Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1(b), pp. 6422, 6423).

*745Again, however, the steps the MMP took in pursuit of these objectives were limited and specific. The MMP established a program for issuance of medical marijuana identification cards to those qualified patients and designated primary caregivers who wish to carry them, and required responsible county agencies to cooperate in this program. (§§ 11362.71, subds. (a)-(d), 11362.715, 11362.72, 11362.735, 11362.74, 11362.745, 11362.755.) It provided that the holder of an identification card shall not be subject to arrest for possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana, within the amounts specified by the statute, except upon reasonable cause to believe the card is false or invalid or the holder is in violation of statute. (§ 11362.71, subd. (e); see § 11362.77, subd. (a).)

The MMP further specified that certain persons, including (1) a qualified patient, or the holder of a valid identification card, who possesses or transports marijuana for personal medical use, or (2) a designated primary caregiver who transports, processes, administers, delivers, or gives away, in amounts no greater than those specified by statute, marijuana for medical purposes to or for a qualified patient or valid cardholder “shall not be subject, on that sole basis, to criminal liability” under section 11357 (possession of marijuana), 11358 (cultivation of marijuana), 11359 (possession of marijuana for sale), 11360 (sale, transportation, importation, or furnishing of marijuana), 11366 (maintaining place for purpose of unlawfully selling, furnishing, or using controlled substance), 11366.5 (knowingly providing place for purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, or distributing controlled substance), or 11570 (place used for unlawful selling, furnishing, storing, or manufacturing of controlled substance as nuisance). (§ 11362.765, subd. (a).)

Finally, as indicated above, the MMP declared that “[qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of [such persons], who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570.” (§ 11362.775, italics added.) However, an amendment adopted in 2010 declares that no medical marijuana “cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider,” other than a licensed residential or elder medical care facility, that is “authorized by law” to possess, cultivate, or distribute medical marijuana, and that “has a storefront or mobile retail outlet which ordinarily requires a local business license,” shall be located within 600 feet of a school. (§ 11362.768, subds. (b)-(e), as added by Stats. 2010, ch. 603, § 1.)

Our decisions have stressed the narrow reach of these statutes. Thus, in Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 920 [70 *746Cal.Rptr.3d 382, 174 P.3d 200] (Ross), a telecommunications company discharged an employee from his supervisory position after an employer-mandated drug test disclosed the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol, a chemical found in marijuana. The employee sued, urging that his termination for this reason violated both the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) and public policy. The employee’s complaint alleged that he ingested medical marijuana, as a qualified patient under the CUA, to alleviate his chronic back pain, but was nonetheless able to perform his duties satisfactorily. Hence, the complaint asserted, the employer was obliged, under the FEHA, to accommodate his disability by accepting his use of medical marijuana. The trial court sustained the employer’s demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, and we upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment. We noted that neither the CUA’s findings and declarations, nor its substantive provisions, mention employment rights, except in their protection of physicians who recommend medical marijuana to patients.

The employee urged that such rights were implied in the voters’ declaration of their intent in the CUA “[t]o ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes.” (§ 11362.5, subd. (b)(1)(A).) We rejected this notion. As we observed, “[p]laintiff would read [this declaration] as if it created a broad right to use marijuana without hindrance or inconvenience, enforceable against private parties such as employers.” (Ross, supra, 42 Cal.4th 920, 928.) On the contrary, we stated, “the only ‘right’ to obtain and use marijuana created by the [CUA] is the right of ‘a patient, or ... a patient’s primary caregiver, [to] possess[] or cultivate[] marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician’ without thereby becoming subject to punishment under sections 11357 and 11358 of the Health and Safety Code. [Citation.]” (Ross, supra, at p. 929.)

In reaching this conclusion, we emphasized the CUA’s “modest objectives” (Ross, supra, 42 Cal.4th 920, 930), pointing out that the initiative’s proponents had “consistently described the proposed measure to the voters as motivated” only “by the desire to create a narrow exception to the criminal law” for medical marijuana possession and use under the circumstances specified. (Id., at p. 929.) We endorsed the observation that “ ‘the proponents’ ballot arguments reveal a delicate tightrope walk designed to induce voter approval, which we would upset were we to stretch the proposition’s limited immunity to cover that which its language does not.’ ” (Id., at p. 930, quoting People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1152 [128 Cal.Rptr.2d 844].)

*747In People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274 [85 Cal.Rptr.3d 480, 195 P.3d 1061] (Mentch), a defendant charged with cultivation and possession for sale of marijuana sought to raise the defense, among others, that he was immune from conviction as a “primary caregiver” protected by the CUA. Two witnesses testified they had medical marijuana recommendations and obtained their marijuana from the defendant, paying him in cash for their supplies. The defendant testified that he himself had a medical marijuana recommendation; had studied how to grow marijuana; had thereafter opened a “caregiving and consultancy business” to give people safe access to medical marijuana; and supplied medical marijuana to five patients. The defendant also stated that he took “a ‘couple’ ” of patients to medical appointments “on a ‘sporadic’ basis,” and that he provided shelter to one patient during a brief part of the time he was selling her marijuana. (Mentch, at p. 280.)

Finding insufficient evidence on the point, the trial court declined to provide a “primary caregiver” instruction, and the defendant was convicted as charged. The Court of Appeal reversed the convictions. The appellate court concluded that evidence the defendant grew medical marijuana for qualified patients, counseled them on how to grow and use medical marijuana, and occasionally took them to medical appointments was sufficient to warrant a “primary caregiver” instruction. (Mentch, supra, 45 Cal.4th 274, 281-282.)

We reversed the Court of Appeal. We first examined the CUA’s definition of a “primary caregiver” as “the individual designated by [a qualified medical marijuana patient] who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.” (§ 11362.5, subd. (e), italics added.) This language, we reasoned, “impl[ied]” an ongoing “caretaking relationship directed at the core survival needs of a seriously ill patient, not just one single pharmaceutical need.” (Mentch, supra, 45 Cal.4th 274, 286.) Further, we observed, the ballot arguments for Proposition 215, which became the CUA, suggested that a patient would be primarily responsible for noncommercially supplying his or her own medical marijuana, but that a “primary caregiver” should be allowed to act for a seriously or terminally afflicted patient who was too ill or bedridden to do so. Accordingly, we held that a person cannot establish “primary caregiver” status simply by showing he or she was chosen and used by a qualified patient to assist the patient in obtaining and ingesting medical marijuana. Instead, we concluded, a “primary caregiver” must prove, at a minimum, that he or she consistently provided care in such areas as housing, health, and safety, independent of any help with medical marijuana, and undertook such general caregiving duties before assuming responsibility for assisting with medical marijuana.

Alternatively, the defendant urged that the MMP, specifically section 11362.765, provides a defense against charges of cultivation and possession *748for sale to those who assist patients and primary caregivers in administering, or learning how to cultivate or administer, medical marijuana. By failing to so advise his jury, the defendant insisted, the trial court breached its sua sponte duty to instruct on any affirmative defense supported by the evidence.

We responded that the defendant’s reading of the MMP was too broad. We explained that while the MMP “does convey additional immunities against cultivation arid possession for sale charges to specific groups of people, it does so only for specific actions; it does not provide globally that the specified groups of people may never be charged with cultivation or possession for sale. That is, the immunities conveyed by section 11362.765 have three defining characteristics: (1) they each apply only to a specific group of people; (2) they each apply only to a specific range of conduct; and (3) they each apply only against a specific set of laws.” (Mentch, supra, 45 Cal.4th 274, 290.)

Moreover, we noted, section 11362.765 declares only that the specified groups of people engaged in the specified conduct shall not “on that sole basis” be subject to criminal liability under the specified laws. Hence, we determined, section 11362.765, subdivision (b)(3), which grants immunity from certain state marijuana laws to one who “provides assistance to a qualified patient or . . . primary caregiver, in administering medical marijuana to the . . . patient or . . . acquiring the skills necessary to cultivate or administer marijuana for medical purposes to the . . . patient,” affords the specified criminal immunities only for providing the described forms of assistance. This subdivision, we said, “does not mean [the defendant] could not be charged with cultivation or possession for sale on any basis ...” (Mentch, supra, 45 Cal.4th 274, 292, original italics.) On the contrary, “to the extent he went beyond the immunized range of conduct, i.e., administration, advice, and counseling, he would, once again, subject himself to the full force of the criminal law.” (Ibid.) Because it was undisputed that the defendant “did much more than administer, advise, and counsel,” we said, the MMP afforded him no defense, and no instruction was required. (Mentch, at p. 292.)

Similarly, the MMP provision at issue here, section 11362.775, provides only that when particular described persons engage in particular described conduct, they enjoy, with respect to that conduct, a limited immunity from specified state marijuana laws. As previously noted, section 11362.775 simply declares that “[qjualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate ... in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions . . .” for the possession, furnishing, sale, cultivation, transportation, *749or possession for sale of marijuana, or for providing or maintaining a place for the manufacture, processing, storage, or distribution of marijuana. (Italics added; see People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 747, 785 [33 Cal.Rptr.3d 859] (Urziceanu).)

Recognizing the limited reach of the CUA and the MMP, Court of Appeal decisions have consistently held that these statutes, by exempting certain medical marijuana activities—including the collective cultivation and distribution of medical marijuana under specified circumstances—from the sanctions otherwise imposed by particular state antimarijuana laws, do not preempt local land use regulation of medical marijuana collectives, cooperatives, and dispensaries, even when such regulation amounts to a total ban on such facilities within a local jurisdiction’s borders.

Thus, in Kruse, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th 1153, the defendant’s application for a business license to operate a medical marijuana dispensary was denied by Claremont’s city manager in September 2006. The grounds cited were that such a facility was not a permitted use under Claremont’s land use and development code. The denial letter advised the defendant he could appeal to the city council, and could also seek an amendment to the code. He did not seek such an amendment, and he began operating his facility on the day his permit was denied. Meanwhile, he filed an administrative appeal. Therein he urged that a code amendment was unnecessary because state law (i.e., the CUA and the MMP) rendered “ ‘[a] medical marijuana caregivers collective ... a legal but not conforming business anywhere in the state where it is not regulated.’ ” (Kruse, supra, at p. 1160.) He further alleged that, before beginning operations, he had given the city notice and opportunity to adopt such regulations if it chose.

In late September 2006, while the administrative appeal was pending, the city adopted a 45-day moratorium on the issuance of any permit, variance, license, or other entitlement for operation of a medical marijuana dispensary within its boundaries. The city manager promptly advised the defendant that adoption of the moratorium rendered his appeal moot. Thereafter, the city extended the moratorium several times, ultimately for a period ending on September 10, 2008.

Defendant continued to operate his facility. After he ignored two cease and desist orders, he was cited, tried, convicted, and fined for operating without a business license in violation of city ordinances. Thereafter, he continued to operate despite the issuance of yet another cease and desist order and a succession of administrative citations. Accordingly, in January 2007, the city sued for injunctive relief to abate a public nuisance. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and ultimately, in May *7502008, a permanent injunction. Among its other conclusions of law, the court determined that the CUA did not preempt the city’s moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries, “because ‘there is nothing in the text or history of the [CUA] that suggests that the voters intended to mandate that municipalities allow [such facilities] to operate within their city limits.’ ” (Kruse, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1162.)

On appeal, the defendant urged, inter alia, that the CUA and the MMP preempted the city’s moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries and precluded the city from denying permission to operate such a facility. The Court of Appeal rejected this and the defendant’s other claims and affirmed the judgment.

On the issue of preemption, the appellate court first found no express conflict between the state medical marijuana statutes and the city’s action. By their terms, the Court of Appeal observed, the CUA and the MMP do no more than exempt specific groups and specific conduct from liability under particular criminal statutes.

Second, the Court of Appeal concluded, there was no implied preemption under either state statute. The court reasoned as follows: Neither provision addresses, much less covers, the areas of zoning, land use planning, and business licensing. The city’s moratorium ordinance was not “inimical” to the state statutes, in that it did not conflict with those laws by requiring what they forbid or prohibiting what they require. Nor does the CUA or the MMP impose a comprehensive regulatory scheme “demonstrating that the availability of medical marijuana is a matter of ‘statewide concern,’ thereby preempting local zoning and business licensing laws.” (Kruse, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1175.) In particular, the CUA’s statement of intent “ ‘[t]o ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes’ ” (Kruse, at p. 1175) does not demonstrate a matter of preemptive statewide concern, for that declaration by the voters “[did] not create ‘a broad right to use marijuana without hindrance or inconvenience’ [citation], or to dispense marijuana without regard to local zoning and business licensing laws” (ibid.). Additionally, there is no partial state coverage of medical marijuana in terms indicating clearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action. Indeed, the CUA expressly states that it does not preclude legislation prohibiting conduct that endangers others, and the MMP explicitly provides that it does not prevent a local jurisdiction from adopting and enforcing laws that are consistent with its provisions.

*751In sum, the Court of Appeal concluded, “[n]either the CUA nor the MMP compels the establishment of local regulations to accommodate medical marijuana dispensaries. The [cjity’s enforcement of its licensing and zoning laws and its temporary moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries do not conflict with the CUA or the MMP.” (