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 any permits the City had granted to SweetFlower’s competitor, Integral Associates Dena, LLC, pertaining to Integral’s operation of a retail cannabis store in the City and to obtain a judicial declaration that the City had erred in concluding Integral remained eligible to participate in the permitting process following a material change in its ownership. 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