PERIDOT TREE, INC. V. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, No. 22-16783 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
The case involves Peridot Tree, Inc. and Kenneth Gay, who filed suit against the City of Sacramento and Davina Smith, alleging that the city's requirement for individuals applying for permits to operate storefront marijuana dispensaries to be Sacramento residents violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution. The clause prevents states from discriminating against interstate commerce.
The District Court abstained from exercising jurisdiction over the claim due to the conflict between state and federal law regulating marijuana use and distribution, and directed the plaintiffs to seek relief in California state court. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision to abstain from exercising jurisdiction. The court found that abstention was not warranted under any of the established abstention doctrines, including the Pullman, Burford, Thibodaux, and Colorado River doctrines. The court reasoned that the case did not present "exceptional circumstances" warranting abstention, and that the district court effectively imposed an exhaustion requirement on the plaintiffs by requiring them to first identify and litigate potential state-law claims before raising their federal constitutional concerns.
The case was remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings on the dormant Commerce Clause claim.
Court Description: Civil Rights/Abstention In an action challenging the City of Sacramento’s requirement that individuals applying for permits to operate storefront marijuana dispensaries within city limits be Sacramento residents, the panel reversed the district court’s decision to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff’s dormant Commerce Clause claim and remanded for further proceedings.
The district court—concerned by the conflict between state and federal law regulating marijuana use and distribution and that it might have to apply constitutional protections to federally unlawful conduct—abstained from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff’s dormant Commerce Clause claim, stayed the case, and directed plaintiff to seek relief in California state court. * The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., United States Senior District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Abstention is generally permitted only in exceptional circumstances when denying a federal forum would clearly serve an important countervailing interest.
The panel held that abstention was not warranted under Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), which permits abstention when the resolution of a federal question might be obviated if the state courts were given the opportunity to interpret ambiguous state law.
Given the clarity of Sacramento’s residency requirement, precedent interpreting similar requirements, and the lack of state law issues that might narrow or moot the federal constitutional claim, plaintiff’s suit does not meet the requirements of Pullman abstention.
The panel held that abstention was not warranted under Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943). California has not chosen to concentrate suits challenging administrative action in a particular court and plaintiff’s claim did not resemble one asserting that a state agency had misapplied its lawful authority or failed to take into consideration or properly weigh relevant state-law factors. Instead, this case presents pronounced federal interests, implicating the substantial federal concern of whether the dormant Commerce Clause applies to conduct lawful under state law and unlawful under federal law.
The panel held that abstention was improper under Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S.
25 (1959), because this lawsuit does not present a dispute between intra-governmental agencies or states, the city’s residency requirement is straightforward, and no party has articulated a pressing sovereignty concern endangered by the dormant Commerce Clause analysis. The panel held that abstention was not warranted under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), because there is no concurrent state-court proceeding.
Finally, the panel declined Sacramento’s invitation to invoke general comity principles to affirm the district court’s decision. Plaintiff’s suit exclusively presents a question of federal law. The district court’s abstention and its expectation that plaintiff try its luck in state court did little to promote efficiency, comity, or federalism, and effectively imposed an exhaustion requirement on plaintiff.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.