Allen, et al v. County of Lake, et al

Filing 53

ORDER re: Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MONA ALLEN, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,
v.

6
7

COUNTY OF LAKE, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-03934-TEH
ORDER RE: HEARING ON
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Defendants.

8
9

The parties shall come prepared to address the following at the October 6, 2014

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction:

12
13

QUESTIONS FOR PLAINTIFFS:

14

1. Do all Plaintiffs primarily reside in Lake County, and were the properties at

15

issue their residential properties?
2. Several of the Plaintiffs were clearly out of compliance with the Ordinance. Why

16
17

do they not have unclean hands when they ask this Court for equitable relief?
3. The Court notes that one Plaintiff had twenty-five medical marijuana plants on

18
19

her property. Is this number of plants typical for a single medical marijuana patient?

20

4. Why does the balance of equities favor Plaintiffs?

21

5. Why should the Court not apply the “heavy burden” test for the injunction in this

22

case?
6. How should the Court write an injunction that protects Plaintiffs’ Fourth

23
24

Amendment rights while also allowing the County to take action in legitimate

25

emergencies?

26

//

27

//

28

//

1

7. The Court is concerned that the allegations against the individual defendants do

2

not state a claim for relief. How should the Court write an injunction that protects

3

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights if the allegations against these officials are

4

insufficient?

5
6

QUESTIONS FOR DEFENDANTS:

7

1. How long does it take to obtain a warrant for a search and seizure such as those

8
9

at issue in this case?
2. Why is the water used by, for example, six plants on less than an acre outdoors
an emergency, justifying a warrantless search and seizure, but the water used by six plants

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

on just over an acre outdoors, or the water used by as many plants as fit in 100 square feet

12

indoors, perfectly acceptable under the Ordinance? Why are these standards not arbitrary?

13
14
15

3. Were the abatements at issue conducted according to the Ordinance’s summary
abatement provision, or were these seizures consensual?
4. What is the justification for engaging in the immediate abatement of the

16

marijuana plants as opposed to waiting only five days to abate them in accordance with the

17

Ordinance’s notice process?

18
19
20
21

5. What other agricultural crops have been abated, summarily or otherwise, in order
to save water in Lake County?
6. Besides the current drought, why does the balance of hardships favor
Defendants?

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated: 10/02/2014

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

28

2