Sweetflower Pasadena v. City of Pasadena CA2/7
SweetFlower Pasadena, LLC filed a verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint seeking to compel the City of Pasadena to set aside a conditional use permit the City had granted to SweetFlower’s competitor, Integral Associates Dena, LLC, and to obtain a judicial declaration that Integral was ineligible for the permits required to open and operate a cannabis retail store in the City. Integral, named in SweetFlower’s petition/complaint as real party in interest, filed a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court denied Integral’s motion, concluding none of SweetFlower’s claims arose from protected speech or petitioning activity. We affirm.
Comments on Sweetflower Pasadena v. City of Pasadena CA2/7