People v. Braum - Case Brief

People v. Braum - Case Brief

People v. Braum

Case Number: B289603

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2020-05-22

Case Brief – People v. Braum

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-04
Case Number: B289603
Disposition: AFFIRMED

Holding

The court held that the City’s civil judgments against Daniel Braum (in his individual and trustee capacities) did not violate the federal or California double‑jeopardy clauses, were not excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment or Article I, § 17 of the California Constitution, and that the City possessed both the statutory authority to require Braum to evict the dispensary tenants and to impose personal liability on him as landlord and trustee.

Narrative

Lead – In a sprawling dispute that pits a private landlord against the City of Los Angeles over the regulation of medical‑marijuana dispensaries, the Court of Appeal affirmed judgments imposing more than $6 million in civil penalties on Daniel Braum. The decision resolves a cluster of constitutional challenges—double jeopardy, excessive‑fine, vagueness, and personal‑liability claims—by reaffirming the City’s power to enforce its zoning and narcotics‑abatement ordinances against a landlord who knowingly permitted prohibited marijuana businesses to operate on his properties.

Procedural History – Michael Braum, a real‑estate investor and trustee of the Braum Family Living Trust, leased two commercial sites in Los Angeles to entities that operated medical‑marijuana dispensaries. After the City determined the dispensaries violated its zoning code, it filed two civil enforcement actions (Emerald and Ventura) in 2011, seeking civil penalties for zoning violations (Los Angeles Municipal Code § 12.21 A.1(a)) and for nuisance under Health & Safety Code § 11570. While those actions were pending, the City also filed a criminal complaint charging Braum with six misdemeanor violations of Municipal Code § 45.19.6.2(A) and six of § 12.21 A.1(a). Braum entered a nolo contendere plea and was placed in a 12‑month diversion program.

The trial court entered summary‑judgment rulings in 2015, finding Braum liable for both the zoning and nuisance claims, and later, after a remedies hearing, imposed civil penalties of $2,242,500 (Emerald) and $3,675,000 (Ventura) for the zoning violations, plus $25,000 per property under Health & Safety Code § 11581(b)(2) for the nuisance violations. Braum appealed, asserting five defenses: (1) double jeopardy; (2) excessive fines; (3) lack of authority to compel eviction; (4) vagueness of the City’s marijuana regulations; and (5) that personal liability was improper because the Trust, not he individually, owned the properties.

Facts – The two leases—one dated June 22 2007 for the Sherman Oaks property (Emerald) and the other January 7 2009 for the Studio City property (Ventura)—explicitly permitted “sales of medical cannabis” or “medical‑marijuana collectives.” Braum relied on a May 2010 zoning‑administrator interpretation that medical‑marijuana collectives were a permitted use in any zone, subject to state law. Nonetheless, the City’s Interim Control Ordinance (2007) and its 2010 Permanent Ordinance limited dispensaries to a lottery‑based registration system and prohibited unregistered collectives. The City sent cease‑and‑desist letters in 2010‑2011, filed civil complaints in August 2011, obtained a preliminary injunction against the Emerald dispensary in November 2012, and pursued contempt proceedings in 2013, which Braum settled for $10,000. The dispensaries continued operating until September 2013 (Emerald) and January 2013 (Ventura).

Issues

  1. Double Jeopardy – Whether the civil penalties constitute a second prosecution for the same offense after Braum’s criminal conviction.
  2. Excessive Fines – Whether the aggregate civil penalties ($5.97 million) are grossly disproportionate to the alleged harms, violating the Eighth Amendment and Article I, § 17 Cal. Const.
  3. Authority to Evict – Whether the City may order a landlord to evict tenants for violating municipal zoning and narcotics‑abatement statutes.
  4. Vagueness/Due Process – Whether the City’s “maze” of marijuana regulations fails the void‑for‑vagueness test.
  5. Personal Liability – Whether Braum, as individual and trustee, can be held liable despite the Trust’s ownership of the properties.

Holding and Reasoning

  1. Double Jeopardy – The court applied the Blockburger “same‑offense” test, emphasizing that the criminal complaint covered conduct at a different address (1123 W 7th St.) and distinct dates (Aug 23 – Oct 11 2013) than the civil actions, which alleged violations beginning in June 2010 (Emerald) and January 2009 (Ventura). Because the offenses did not arise from the same conduct, the double‑jeopardy clause did not bar the civil penalties. The court also noted that the criminal sanctions were nominal (diversion program) and that the civil penalties were remedial, not punitive, in nature.

  2. Excessive Fines – Employing the four‑part Bajakajian proportionality analysis, the court found: (a) Culpability – Braum was repeatedly notified of the illegality, continued to accept rent, and ignored a preliminary injunction, demonstrating “flagrant” non‑compliance; (b) Harm‑Penalty Relationship – The City’s interest in preventing unregistered dispensaries, especially near schools, justified substantial penalties; (c) Comparable Penalties – While no exact precedent existed for medical‑marijuana landlords, analogous regulatory schemes (e.g., San Francisco’s tobacco‑sale fines) imposed comparable daily penalties; and (d) Ability to Pay – The penalties were assessed against Braum personally and the Trust, not as a forfeiture of property, and the court found no indication that the fines were confiscatory. Accordingly, the fines were not “grossly disproportionate” and survived the excessive‑fine challenge.

  3. Authority to Evict – The court affirmed that both Municipal Code § 12.21 A.1(a) (use of a building in violation of zoning) and Health & Safety Code § 11570 (narcotics‑abatement) empower the City to seek injunctions compelling landlords to cease prohibited uses. The trial court’s order requiring Braum to file an unlawful‑detainer action and to “diligently pursue” eviction was a permissible remedial measure, not an overreach.

  4. Vagueness – The City’s regulations, though complex, were found to provide sufficient notice of prohibited uses. The court highlighted the explicit language of Proposition D and the Permanent Ordinance, which enumerated prohibited activities and defined “medical‑marijuana business.” The plaintiff’s reliance on a zoning‑administrator’s interpretive memo did not render the ordinance void for vagueness; rather, it demonstrated that Braum’s reliance on that memo was unreasonable given the clear statutory prohibitions.

  5. Personal Liability – The court rejected Braum’s argument that only the Trust could be liable. Under California law, a landlord may be held personally liable for knowingly permitting illegal activities on leased premises (see People v. Craine). The trial court’s findings that Braum, as “lessor” and “trustee,” had actual knowledge and participated in the violations satisfied the element of personal culpability.

Conclusion – The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgments, rejecting all five of Braum’s constitutional and statutory defenses. The decision underscores that landlords who knowingly facilitate prohibited marijuana operations can be subject to substantial civil penalties, personal liability, and court‑ordered eviction mandates, even when a criminal proceeding on related conduct has already occurred.

Impact and Unresolved Issues – This opinion clarifies that civil enforcement actions are not barred by double jeopardy when the underlying conduct differs in time or location from any criminal prosecution. It also signals that California courts will apply the Bajakajian proportionality test rigorously, but will not deem large civil fines excessive where the defendant’s conduct is willful and the regulatory scheme is designed to protect public health and safety.

Nevertheless, the ruling leaves open the question of how courts will treat future challenges when municipal marijuana ordinances are revised to align with statewide recreational‑marijuana law (Prop 64). As the regulatory landscape evolves, landlords may argue that earlier prohibitions were superseded, potentially reviving due‑process or vagueness challenges. Moreover, the decision does not address whether a landlord could be shielded by a bona‑fide reliance on a municipal interpretive memo if the memo is later repudiated—a factual nuance that may surface in subsequent litigation.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Health & Safety Code §§ 11362.5, 11570, 11581(b)(2) – Immunity for medical‑marijuana caregivers; definition of narcotics nuisance; civil penalties for nuisance violations.
  • Los Angeles Municipal Code §§ 12.21 A.1(a), 45.19.6.2(A), 45.19.6.7, 45.19.6.3 A.2(a) – Zoning use restrictions; prohibition on operating or permitting a medical‑marijuana business; registration requirements; school‑proximity restrictions.
  • California Constitution Art. I, §§ 15 & 17 – Double jeopardy; prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment and excessive fines.
  • U.S. Constitution Amend. V & VIII – Federal double‑jeopardy and excessive‑fine clauses (applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment).

Key Cases Cited

  • 420 Caregivers, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 219 Cal.App.4th 1316 – Background on municipal marijuana regulation.
  • Safe Life Caregivers v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1029 – Interpretation of the Permanent Ordinance.
  • People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580 – California double‑jeopardy protection.
  • People v. Sloan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 110 – Scope of double jeopardy.
  • Blockburger v. United States (1932) 284 U.S. 299 – Same‑offense test.
  • People v. Cuevas (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 620 – No bar to successive prosecutions for distinct conduct.
  • United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. 321 – Excessive‑fine proportionality analysis.
  • People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707 – State‑level excessive‑fine doctrine.
  • Sainez v. City & County of San Francisco (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1302 – Application of proportionality factors.
  • Townsel v. San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 940 – De novo review of excessive‑fine determinations.
  • People v. Craine (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 744 – Liability of landlords for illegal activities on leased premises.

Last updated September 05, 2025.