1 Not only does H&S Code §11362.5 have no applicability to this action, it has no
2 applicability to any civil action. The body of law upon which defendant relies has applicability
in criminal actions only. The statutory medical-marijuana defense grants a defendant a limited
immunity to prosecution by rendering possession and cultivation of marijuana noncriminal for a
6 qualified patient or primary caregiver. People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457.
7 The law does not give a right to possess, grow or use marijuana, it gives a defense in a
8 limited forum. Defendant would like to use this case as the test case, but it is simply not the
proper action. This Court is not in a position to expand a law designed to provide a criminal
10 defense to a civil action in which an individual, widowed, landlord seeks to regain possession of
13 There is no Federal Law in existence at this time which provides the same defenses as
14 H&S 11362.5. Further, even if this law was applicable to defendant in this action, Millard is,
not a protected class under the law. The threat of prosecution under either California or Federal
law is still a real prospect for Millard. She cannot in her own best interest allow such activity to
take place on her property.
19 Health & Safety Code § 11362.5(b)(2) provides that nothing in the code section shall
20 supercede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others. The
21 code itself protects Millard.
22 Given the circumstances surrounding the action before the Court, the foregoing is enough
said on the subject. If this Court is of the opinion that the medical-marijuana issue is relevant
25 and applicable, Millard requests that she be able to submit a much more extensive brief on the
- 5 -