Representative Cannabis and Licensing-related Litigation Matters

Currently representing a cannabis company as plaintiff asserting contractual and tort claims arising from the client's purchase of a cannabis dispensary operation and associated real property from the defendants.

• Catalyst-Grover Beach LLC v. Harvest of California LLC et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 25STCV06872.   

Represented a cannabis retailer in an action against a large cultivator in California for alleged B&P Code 17200 violations, as well as a subsequent related action filed by the cultivator for defamation.  In the defamation case, after winning several motions to compel requiring the cultivator to produce relevant documents and information, defeating a motion for reconsideration by the cultivator imploring the court to reverse its discovery order, and filing additional motions to compel the cultivator to comply with the Court's discovery orders and for the imposition of issue sanctions, the cultivator unilaterally and without any advanced notice dismissed the defamation case in its entirety.  We ultimately obtained a judgment against the plaintiffs for costs.    

In the 17200 Action, the Court dismissed my client's case under the doctrine of equitable judicial abstention -- i.e., it refused to hear the case, referring my client to the Department of Cannabis Control for redress.  The client is current assessing an appeal of the dismissal.  Notably, the 17200 case was dismissed just days before a scheduled discovery hearing for which the appointed Referee already had prepared a tentative ruling compelling the defendant to produce critical discovery it had refused to provide for nearly a year.     

• 562 Discount Med., Inc. v. Glass House Brands Inc.,  Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23LBCV 01025 & Glass House Brands ,Inc. et al v. South Cord Holdings, LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23 STCV14403.  

Currently representing a cannabis dispensary in an action against the California Department of Tax & Fee Administration in which the client seeks to invalidate emergency regulations enacted by the CDTFA for the purpose of imposing excise taxes on cannabis accessories in violation of Prop 64 and governing legislation.

• HNHPC, Inc. v. California Department of Tax & Fee Administration, Orange County Superior Court Case No.  30-2023-01369643-CU-WM-CJC

Currently representing Central Valley-Sierra Associates in a writ of mandate and breach of contract action against the City of Patterson, California, over the City's decision to revoke CVSA's license for failure to pay extortionate "Public Benefit" payments under a Development Agreement ("DA") it made all licensees sign.  On February 8, 2024, the Court  granted our request for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the City from revoking CVSA's license pending the final outcome of the case, finding among other things that we had established a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits of our claim that the DA's Public Benefits provisions violated the Mitigation Fee Act and also effected an unconstitutional regulatory taking under governing U.S. Supreme Court and California legal precedents.  

• Central Valley - Sierra Associates v. City of Patterson,  Stanislaus Superior Court Case No.  CV-23-005444.

Currently representing a cannabis client in a lawsuit against the Department of Cannabis Control arising out of the DCC's failure to flag irregular transactions in its track and trace program, leading to the exponential rise of burner distributors that sell substantial quantities of unregulated and untaxed cannabis on the black market.  After the trial court erroneously sustained the DCC's demurrer without leave to amend, we appealed, and after oral argument the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision in a unanimous published written opinion..     

• HNHPC, Inc. v. Department of Cannabis Control et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01221014-CU-WM-CJC; see also HNHPC v. Department of Cannabis Control (2023) 94 Cal. App. 5th 60.

Currently representing Catalyst-Fontana in a mandamus action against the City of Fontana arising out of the City's denial of its business license application.  In connection with the litigation, the client and the City amicably resolved the dispute and the client was awarded a license to operate in the City.  

•  Catalyst-Fontana LLC v. City of Fontana et al., San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. CIVSB2329401.

Successfully represented a medical marijuana dispensary license applicant in a mandamus challenge to the application and licensee selection process employed by the City of San Bernardino.  As a result of the litigation, and to resolve the litigation, the City agreed to issue a business license to the client.    

• EEL Holdings, LLC v. City of San Bernardino et al.,  SB Superior Court Case No. CIVDS190467. 

Represented a marijuana dispensary applicant in a mandamus actions against the City of Vista.  In the first action, the Court ruled the City had improperly refused to provide the client with required appellate rights, and ordered the City to provide a City Council appeal so the client could challenge the denial of its application.      

• Frank Zimmerman Collective v. City of Vista et al.,  SD Superior Court Case No. 37-2019-00029400-CU-WM-NC (Court ordered the City to provide an appeal to the City Council and to establish a formal appellate process). 

Represented a successful cannabis business licensee (EEL-EL Monte, LLC) as a Real Party as Interest in multiple cases filed by unsuccessful applicants challenging via writs of mandate the City of El Monte's cannabis business permit application process and procedures.  As a Real Party in Interest, EEL obtained summary judgment in one case, prevailed on an anti-SLAPP Motion and then (with the City and other Real Parties) defeated the petitioner's writ application in another case, a third case was voluntarily dismissed after EEL filed a Motion for Judgment.  

• Calimed-Baldwin, LLC v. City of El Monte, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20STCP03134 (EEL's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted on November 4, 2021).

• Feah, LLC v. City of El Monte, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20STCP03720 (EEL's anti-SLAPP Motion was granted on August 10, 2021, and its Motion for fees was granted in toto on November 4, 2021; the Court denied Feah's writ petition on September 25, 2023; trial court determination is now on appeal).

• NeroCanna Corp. v. City of El Monte, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.  20STCP02545 (case pending -- EEL filed an MSJ against the initial Petition, in response to which NeroCanna amended its Petition, but ultimately it unconditionally  dismissed its petition prior to trial).

• Dronatherapy, Inc. v. City of El Monte, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20STCP04067 (Petitioner voluntarily dismissed case prior to the deadline to file an opposition to EEL's Motion for Judgment).  

Successfully represented a cannabis company in litigation involving MedMen's refusal to complete the $7.7 million purchase of a dispensary in Long Beach.  After nearly three years of litigation, we settled the matter in February 2023 by agreeing to repay (over a year) $500,000 of nearly $3.2 million MedMen had paid toward the purchase of the dispensary -- meaning the client retained both the dispensary and approximately $2.7 million in purchase price payments made by MedMen as a result of the settlement.

•  Ryan Rayburn et al. v. MM Enterprises USA, LLC et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20 SMCV00576.

Successfully represented a cannabis marketing company in a defamation action it filed against a purported market rival.  We obtained a default judgment against the defendants after first obtaining terminating sanctions against them based on their repeated failures to respond to discovery or to discovery motion practice.  

• Element of Choice, LLC v. Stuart G. Williams et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20SMCV01115 (terminating sanctions entered by the Court in May 2021).

Successfully represented a medical marijuana dispensary license applicant in a mandamus action against the City of Bellflower.  Following the voluntary dismissal of the Mandamus Petition, the client received a license from the City.  

• EEL Holdings, LLC v. City of Bellflower, LA Superior Court Case No. BS172178.
  

Represented a medical marijuana dispensary license applicant in a mandamus action against the City of Long Beach and a successful applicant arising from the City’s 2017 license lottery.  After significant litigation in both the Mandamus Action and two separate and related litigation matters, the client and successful applicant amicably resolved the dispute, leading to the dismissal of the actions, the withdrawal of the successful applicant’s application, and the acceptance by the City of the client’s application for licensure. 

• Casey Crow Collective v. City of Long Beach et al., LA Superior Court Case No. BS172171. 

Successfully defended a cannabis client in an unlawful detainer action brought by the landlord.  Following expedited discovery conducted by my client, the landlord voluntarily dismissed the case.  

• Deen v. HNHPC Inc., Orange County Superior Court Case No.  30-2019-01072194-CU-UD-CJC.   

Successfully represented a cannabis client in a real property action (lease/option to purchase) where the landlord/prospective seller retained my client’s initial deposit after the parties’ written agreement became null and void.  We prevailed on summary judgment on claims for conversion and money had and received, and ultimately received back the entire deposit back plus interest as well as reimbursement for most of the client’s legal expenses.  

• EEL Holdings v. Gomez, LA Superior Court Case No. TC029028.      
  

Represented a cannabis client in an unlawful detainer action against a defendant who claimed a purchase option right to a portion of the client’s recently purchased property.  Following the tenant’s deposition, the parties settled with the tenant agreeing to vacate the property and to relinquish any purchase option he may have had in exchange for a small payment.  

• ​Flynn Road Holdings v. Spinnato, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. HG16808852.    ​

Represented sellers in a dispute over the sale of a cannabis dispensary.  Following the filing of cross-claims and several months of contentious litigation, the matter was resolved on favorable terms.

• ​Osiris Ventures, Inc. v. Elliot Lewis et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-19-58312.

Represented a cannabis tenant in lease dispute with landlord.  The matter was resolved favorably for the client, who essentially was let out of its lease with the landlord.

• ​California Operating Co., LLC v. Oakland Cannery Operations et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG19033384.