Cannabis attorneysToday’s Cannabis Case Summary looks at a novel example of the intersection between state-legal  cannabis and employment law. The plaintiff, Bobbie Henry, worked at an Outback Steakhouse in Flint, Michigan, from 1997 to 2014 when she was fired along with four other employees because of drug-related activities. Henry, a registered medical marijuana caregiver under Michigan law, sued Outback, alleging her medical marijuana activities were used as a pretext for age discrimination and her termination on that basis was defamatory. Unfortunately for Henry, a federal judge disagreed and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted Outback’s motion for summary judgment.

The meat (pun intended) of this case is in its facts, which involve two different groups of Outback employees involved in two very different kinds of “drug activity.”

One was made up of Henry and a second Outback employee who was a registered medical marijuana cardholder and a patient of Henry’s. Henry transferred cannabis to the co-worker patient in her role as a registered medical marijuana caregiver permitted by state law.

The second was a group of four employees the kitchen manager had observed exchanging a “small black object” he suspected was an illegal substance for cash. The employees claimed it was a “bridge card,” but after an investigation and a conference call with management the four employees were terminated for cause. The four employees did not go quietly, however, and in exit interviews alleged Henry was “selling drugs” and “dealing dope” at the restaurant. When confronted, Henry claimed that though she did sell medical marijuana to her co-worker patient she did not sell medical marijuana to her co-worker patient on company property. She was terminated the same day for behavior “unbecoming” of the company.

Henry sued Outback, first alleging that her medical marijuana-related activities were used as a pretext for age based discrimination. Henry’s claim was based on the fact that she was the longest-tenured member of the team and had been there for fourteen years before being terminated, despite winning service awards for “Top Performing Bar Team.” She also pointed to an unlitigated situation where a second employee had been terminated for what he felt was age-based discrimination.

The court looked at the pretext issue and was unsympathetic towards Henry, pointing out that she admitted to having a medical marijuana card and to selling drugs to a co-worker. Based on these two things, the court concluded there was a legitimate, non-pretextual reason for Outback to terminate Henry. The court secondarily found that Outback, as Henry’s employer, had a qualified privilege to discuss allegations that she sold medical marijuana to co-workers, which she did not dispute.

This case is just another example of how a state’s permissiveness of medical marijuana or adult-use cannabis will usually not impose a duty on an employer to tolerate marijuana use or override other legal doctrines that give power to employers. Even though Henry was apparently correct that she was in compliance with Michigan law, a little discretion could still have gone a long way. We cannot resist noting the foolishness of an employer terminating a good employee for helping a co-worker.

NOTE: The above is part of our plan to summarize all cannabis civil cases with a published court decision. By civil case, we mean any case that involves cannabis or the cannabis industry that is not a strictly criminal law matter. These cannabis case summaries are intended both to keep you up to date on cannabis laws as interpreted by the courts and also to serve as a resource for anyone conducting cannabis law research. We also will seek to provide key unpublished cannabis law decisions as well, when available.

California cannabis bankingPolitical change comes in fits and starts. Cannabis laws did incredibly well at the state level in the 2016 election cycle, but it looks like we are going to be facing the status quo at the federal level for the foreseeable future. That is good news to some extent, as it is seeming less and less likely that the worst case scenario of the Trump/Sessions Department of Justice will come to fruition. We aren’t expecting to see mass arrests, seizures, and shut-downs in the cannabis industry. On the other hand, we also aren’t expecting to see any major positive changes on cannabis banking or taxes coming out of this government either. The unsteady status quo will remain, where agencies at the federal government will continue to grapple with balancing the criminality of marijuana with the fact that they cannot treat it as wholly criminal, lest they bring about more crime by burying their heads in the sand.

With banking in particular, things have remained relatively consistent since 2014. In February of that year, the Department of Justice and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) at the Department of Treasury released simultaneous memoranda creating a civil structure where financial institutions like banks and credit unions that provide services to the cannabis industry could comply with their regulatory obligations. They would still potentially be committing crimes, but the DOJ would treat them as the lowest enforcement priority.

That 2014 announcement of criminal and administrative enforcement strategy was scoffed at by large financial institutions, for good reason. If you are Bank of America, marijuana simply isn’t a large enough market for you to take any sort of criminal risk. But for smaller banks and credit unions, especially those that had been hit hard by the financial crisis, the memoranda provided just enough cover to take the cannabis risk. Between 2014 and now, Washington and Colorado have developed a small but stable network of financial institutions willing to serve the cannabis industry. Oregon has fewer institutions, but it is coming along as well.

California, however, was left behind, and medical marijuana businesses there still struggle to find banks willing to take their money. This is because of the particular wording in the 2014 FinCEN guidance. In order to comply with their regulatory obligations, part of what banks and credit unions that work with marijuana-related businesses have to do is verify that their cannabis business customer is duly licensed by a state that has robust regulations for its marijuana businesses. Until now, California has not had state-licensed marijuana businesses. It has worked under a series of vague state laws, with individual cities and counties coming up with their own regulations for marijuana businesses that have ranged from outright bans to open licensing processes. These local regulations have worked well in some circumstances, but they are insufficient for banks or credit unions that want to provide services to the marijuana industry without facing FinCEN’s wrath.

This is important for the banks because it isn’t only FinCEN that cares about compliance with their guidance. Federal providers of deposit insurance (the FDIC for banks and the NCUA for credit unions) are unlikely to renew a financial institution’s insurance policy if it looks like that institution is working with marijuana businesses but not following the FinCEN guidance. And that deposit insurance is key in separating banks and credit unions that provide real security for your funds and fly-by-night institutions that could potentially lose all your money.

But things are finally changing in California as we coming up on the issuance of state cannabis licenses in January 2018. This will finally give California’s banks and credit unions a system that allows them to comply with the FinCEN and DOJ guidance. And we predict that much like in other states, the early movers will be small banks and credit unions that are willing to take on a little bit of risk to gain the first-mover advantage. I have said for a long time that I don’t think a “cannabis-only” financial institution is the answer. A bank that only serves cannabis businesses would be subject to too much risk because it is only exposed to a single industry that happens to be criminal at the federal level. They would be completely uninsurable. So the best bet is for financial institutions that already have robust and diverse holdings to work with a number of cannabis businesses up to a maximum based on the size of the rest of the bank’s or credit union’s business.

For banks and credit unions looking to do this, it isn’t too early to start working on developing cannabis specific procedures. Well-run financial institutions have a compliance program in place that includes standard operating procedures and one or more employees dedicated to complying with the Bank Secrecy Act and other federal regulations. Those compliance officers will need to update standard operating procedures to include additional scrutiny for marijuana businesses and regular account updates. It is imperative for financial institutions to make sure those procedures are well-tailored so they are sufficient to meet the FinCEN guidelines while not being so cost-prohibitive that the bank or credit union will lose money on cannabis clients.

Most financial institutions in Washington and Colorado and Oregon that operate in the cannabis industry do so with little fanfare and rely on customer networking to get business. That will likely be the case in California as well, so there may not be much fanfare from banks and credit unions that are getting into the market. But we are confident that very at least some California banks and credit unions will start taking on cannabis accounts in the coming months.

montel

Montel Williams provides a good reminder here. The cannabis industry is taking off in a big way and that includes both medical and recreational cannabis. But in the midst of the excitement so many of us feel about the positive changes we are seeing, we should not forget those who have been fighting this fight for decades, and as Williams states, many of these cannabis leaders have been patients who need medicine. Though we are of the strong view that recreational needs make no apologies, we believe with equal strength that it is important to give patients access to medical-grade cannabis at accessible costs.

In addition to building a cannabis industry that maintains accessibility for patients, we also need to keep pushing until medical cannabis is federally legal. As of April 2017, twenty-nine of the United States have legalized some form of medical marijuana, and many states have medical programs in the works. Though this means more than half the country has some sort of medical program, many of those programs are quite limited in terms of access and reach and it also means there are still many with no legal access at all. What kind of country denies medicine to someone based on the crazy notion that the government should be able to deny access to something as harmless as cannabis?

What more can we all do to open up the cannabis industry even further? Please tell us.

California cannabis manufacturing lawNow that California’s Department of Public Health (through its Office of Manufactured Cannabis Safety) has released its initial rules for cannabis manufacturing, our California cannabis attorneys are fielding numerous calls from existing cannabis businesses (along with new entrants into the field) with a simple question: How do these rules affect me? Last week we covered some of the technical provisions of the rules. Since the regulations for manufacturing come in at a hefty 95 pages, I thought it would be helpful to go over some more rules and how they can affect your cannabis manufacturing business in California. First, it’s important to note that these regulations may change after the public and interested stakeholders have a chance to comment on them, but this is still a significant first step in clarifying what was previously a confusing landscape. The regulations for manufacturing are a clear and effective attempt by California to enact robust regulation to comply with the Cole Memo issued by the U.S. Department of Justice. Here are some areas of importance for anyone looking to engage in cannabis manufacturing in the Golden State:

Types of Licenses. The regulations state that California’s Department of Public Health will issue four types of licenses: Type P, Type N, Type 6, and Type 7. Type N licensees can conduct infusions and can package and label their own products while Type P licensees can do only packaging and labeling for other licensed cannabis manufacturers. Type 6 (non-volatile) and Type 7 (volatile and non-volatile) licensees can conduct extractions and infusions, and can package and label their own products. If you obtain a license there are two important things you need to consider: 1) Unless you obtain a type 7 license you will need to submit a new application if you want to change the type of manufacturing you are conducting; and 2) You need to be sure your cannabis manufacturing operations are in a location that can be sustained because relocating any portion of your manufacturing operation to new premises will require you submit a new license application.

DON’T PROCRASTINATE! If you have a cannabis manufacturing business that is legally operating in California before January 1, 2018, you will be able to continue operating it until the Department of Public Health approves or denies your application. This is extremely important considering it’s the next best thing to getting priority of review – which only applies to cannabis manufacturers that were operating and in good standing with their local jurisdiction as of January 01, 2016.

DO YOU REALLY KNOW YOUR BUSINESS PARTNER?! We’ve already covered who is considered an owner under California’s new cannabis regulations and it’s important you go over the ownership classifications because it can have profound implications on your business. Your application can be denied for a number of acts that your business partner may have committed. Strict attention must be paid to past acts because these prior offenses can torpedo your application and they’re not all obvious. Ever heard of the California Food Sanitation Act? How about the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law? You don’t need to know them inside and out but you do need to make sure your business partner never violated either of those acts because they can be grounds for denying your application.

DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT. The rules state that no applicant or associated applicant shall hold a Type 8 (testing) or Type 11 (distribution) license. The rules also state “a manufacturer licensee shall not manufacture, prepare, package or label any products other than cannabis products at the licensed premises.” If you hoped to merge your cannabis manufacturing operation with a non-cannabis business for increased efficiency, sorry but NO SOUP FOR YOU. Lastly, the rules prohibit a manufacturer licensee from subletting any portion of the licensed premises.

These proposed regulations for cannabis manufacturers could not have come out at a better time, as the lack of legal specificity for cannabis manufacturing had been dampening the enthusiasm and desire of those looking to operate a marijuana manufacturing business in California. Before these new rules issued, our California cannabis attorneys were starting to see a slow but steady increase in sophisticated clients looking to start a California cannabis manufacturing business, but even just since they have come out the number has soared.

california-webinar (1)

On June 1st, from 12-1:30 p.m. Pacific, three of our Los Angeles and San Francisco attorneys, Hilary Bricken, Alison Malsbury, and Habib Bentaleb, will present a free webinar on the initial MCRSA rules, which were released on April 28, 2017 and now make up the bulk of the regulatory standards for California cannabis licensing.

The speakers will give an in-depth analysis of these new rules and give you the knowledge you need to secure a medical cannabis business license from the State of California when January 1, 2018 comes around.

This webinar will cover cannabis licensing issues for:

In addition to these topics, the presenters will take audience questions both during and at the end of the webinar.

To register for this free event plese go here.

We look forward to your attendance.

California cannabis retailer rules
California medical cannabis retailer rules

This post is on California’s initial rules governing medical cannabis retailers as part of our ongoing series analyzing California’s initial medical cannabis rules pursuant to the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MCRSA“). For information regarding the licensing rules for California cannabis manufacturers and cultivators, go here and here.

The MCRSA defines “dispensary” as “a facility where medical cannabis, medical cannabis products, or devices for the use of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products are offered, either individually or in any combination, for retail sale, including an establishment that delivers, pursuant to express authorization by local ordinance, medical cannabis and medical cannabis products as part of a retail sale.” There are  two kinds of dispensary licenses under the MCRSA: Type 10 for a general dispensary and Type 10A, defined as just a “dispensary.”

The MCRSA restricts vertical integration of cannabis licenses by limiting applicants to one or two licenses in certain separate licensing categories (Governor Brown’s Trailer Bill will change this if it passes this summer). A Type 10 licensee can only be a retailer and until January 1, 2026, a Type 10A licensee can be a retailer at no more than three retail locations by holding three separate Type 10 licenses: that of a manufacturer and a cultivator (so long as the Type 10A license has no more than four acres of total canopy size of cultivation throughout the state).

In addition to the mandatory submissions for “owners” and their spouses we discuss here, California cannabis retailers must also submit a complete list of every individual with a non-controlling interest in the retailer, though there are no indications non-controlling interest holders will be vetted by the state in the same way “owners” will be.

Retail applicants must submit all of the following to the State of California as well:

  1. A list of funds belonging to the retailer held in savings, checking, or other accounts maintained by a financial institution.
  2. A list of investments made into the retailer entity.
  3. A list of all gifts of any kind given to the retailer for its use in conducting commercial cannabis activity.
  4. Whether an owner or their spouse has a financial interest in any other cannabis license. “Financial interest” means an investment into a commercial cannabis business, a loan provided to a commercial cannabis business, or any other equity interest in a commercial cannabis business.
  5. A list of all convictions (excepting juvenile crimes and traffic infractions under $300 that didn’t involve alcohol, controlled substances, or dangerous drugs) as well as a rehabilitation list for each conviction.
  6. Application for fingerprints through the Department of Justice.
  7. Documentation issued by the local jurisdiction in which the applicant proposes to operate certifying the applicant is in compliance with all local ordinances and regulations, or will be in compliance with all local ordinances and regulations by the time the Bureau issues a license.
  8. Evidence that the proposed dispensary location is at least a 600-foot radius from any school. In addition, the retail premises must be in a contiguous area and may only be occupied by one licensee, and retailers cannot sublet any portion of the retail premises.
  9. If you have 20 or more employees, an attestation that the applicant has entered into a labor peace agreement and you must provide a copy of that agreement.
  10. A $5,000 surety bond.
  11. A scaled diagram of the dispensary premises that shows “the boundaries of the property and the proposed premises to be licensed, showing all boundaries, dimensions, entrances and exits, interior partitions, walls, rooms, windows, doorways, and common or shared entryways. The diagram must show the areas in which all commercial cannabis activities will take place, including but not limited to, limited-access areas.”
  12. A list of your quality assurance, security, and inventory practices.
  13. Proof of acknowledgement from the dispensary property owner that you can use the property for dispensing and a copy of your lease agreement if you have it. Or if you own the property, provide the deed.

Regarding retailer operational standards, the retailer is responsible for sufficiently tracking and tracing all of its inventory and for record keeping — certain records must be kept for at least seven years. The retailer must also follow all security, surveillance (including installation of 24-hour recording cameras of a certain pixellation that covers certain areas of the operation by a specific number of feet), alarm, and premises access requirements. The retailer is also responsible for cannabis waste-management destruction and disposal. And though California cannabis retailers cannot package or label any cannabis goods, they still must provide “exit packaging” for products, which basically means re-sealable and opaque child resistant packaging. And if a retailer discovers any defective product, it may return the medical cannabis goods only in exchange for a non-defective version of the same medical cannabis goods. So, no cash refunds.

As far as customers go, between the hours of 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., only verified qualified patients or primary caregivers over 18 can freely shop in the dispensary. Nonetheless, anybody younger than 18 can enter the dispensary to purchase medical cannabis goods if they are a medical cannabis patient accompanied by their parent, legal guardian, or primary caregiver. Customers are free to inspect medical cannabis goods through secured containers, but no sampling is allowed. A customer purchase no more than 8 ounces in a single day, unless their physician’s recommendation authorizes more.

Under the MCRSA, “delivery” means “the commercial transfer of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products from a dispensary, up to an amount determined by the bureau to a primary caregiver or qualified patient . . .  or a testing laboratory.” “Delivery” also includes “the use by a dispensary of any technology platform owned and controlled by the dispensary . . . that enables qualified patients or primary caregivers to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer by a licensed dispensary of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products.” So long as city or county law allows for delivery, dispensaries must deliver all product themselves; they cannot use a third party contractor or courier to do it. All deliveries must be done in person by a retail employee who’s at least 21, and all deliveries have to go to physical addresses in California. When making deliveries, dispensary employees cannot carry more than $3,000-worth of cannabis goods at any time. No delivery can be made to an address on “publicly owned land or any address on land or in a building leased by a public agency.” Finally, delivery hours are from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m.

These rules are currently in a 45-day comment period and are by no means final. So, stay tuned to see if and when the Bureau makes additional changes. I am sure these rules seem onerous to many of you, and they are. But for what it is worth, they are in many respects very similar to the laws in various other states where we have helped our clients secure cannabis licenses — Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Nevada and Alaska, for instance — and so as difficult as they may seem, it is certainly possible to satisfy them.

TIPSA couple of years ago, I wrote on this blog that we are never not litigating cannabis disputes. As a direct result, we have written dozens of articles on the subject. This year and next, as the adult use market expands into key states like California, the sheer number of cannabis businesses coming online will result in a further expansion of contested matters. We wish that were not the case, but we have been staffing up our Oregon, Washington and California office with litigators, partly in response to growing demand for cannabis dispute resolution services.

Some cannabis business disputes are short and sweet; others protracted and difficult. Common sense would dictate, and we have always found, that the more efficient and disciplined a litigant is, the better the result, from both a cost and results perspective. The most efficient litigants are those who work closely with counsel to take responsibility for their case, set a goal at the outset, and keep that goal in mind throughout the process.

Here are five tips for working with an attorney to resolve a cannabis business dispute.

Hire the right attorneyAs much as we hate to say it, it is easy to hire poorly in the context of cannabis disputes, for a couple of reasons. First, many lawyers who work in this industry come from a criminal law background and rode the wave into legalization. Much like a business attorney would struggle in drug court, attorneys who lack business law experience are ill equipped to handle corporate cannabis beefs. Second, many good business litigators are still unwilling to service the industry, given the status of federal law. And third, many business litigation firms that do wish to work with the industry are new to cannabis law and its steep learning curve. Most cannabis disputes have significant underpinnings of state and local administrative law and policy. These rules run into the several hundreds of pages, are constantly evolving, and generally are supplemented by unwritten agency policies. Even the brightest non-industry lawyers incur significant time and client expense just getting up to speed.

Be Organized. The most critical client-side component to any litigation is organization. When you hire a lawyer, assemble any and all relevant materials in one place (contracts, emails, voicemails, texts, etc.), and transmit these materials in aggregate to the attorney. Supplement them, if you can, by a chronology and/or written summary of your case. This will save the attorney significant time and energy in assembling the facts of your dispute, and will result in less back-and-forth from the attorney attempting to elicit information he or she may need for your case.

Put all of your cards on the table. Don’t shield any information from your attorney that you find embarrassing, or that you think is less compelling than other facts, or that you feel may damage your case. You should feel incentivized to pass along anything relevant, or even possibly relevant, for four primary reasons: (1) everything you pass along will be protected by the attorney-client privilege; (2) anything damaging will almost certainly come out at depositions or elsewhere in the discovery process, anyway, and is best dealt with beforehand; (3) when an attorney lines up the facts of your case with the legal elements of potential claims, minor facts, which you may not find compelling, tend to come out of the woodwork and play a significant role; and (4) trust us, we have seen worse.

Step back. Throughout the arc of any litigation, there will be a volley of correspondence, filings and other developments between the parties – shots across the bow. When a development occurs, you may feel a very strong urge to immediately pick up the phone and offer an extended hot take on the latest item. Most of the time, these conversations are less productive than if both litigant and attorney allow the new information to percolate in advance of a structured conversation. The one exception here is any development that truly requires immediate action, and those developments are rarer than many people think. We realize that stepping back is easier said than done, but taking a measured approach throughout the arc of a contest preserves energy and controls costs. Think of litigation as a marathon, not a sprint.

Be Realistic. As attorneys, we like to think we excel at getting efficient, advantageous results for our clients. And we generally do, within the realm of the possible. For example, we may be able to recover your costs or attorney fees in litigation, but only if you have a contractual or statutory basis for doing so. Similarly, we may be able to resolve a dispute with a strong letter or a well-written complaint, but only if the other side is acting rationally. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your position will lead to a realistic appreciation of the gamut of possible outcomes. At that point, you and your lawyer can maximize every tool at your disposal to pursue, and attain, the best possible result.

 

Cannabis attorneysCommercial leases for cannabis businesses are a major concern for many of our clients largely because cannabis businesses operate in an industry prohibited under federal law. Generally, contracts that are illegal are unenforceable and there is an argument to be made that any and all cannabis contracts are illegal, at least at the federal level. But a recent Arizona state court shows that state courts are not always receptive to that argument and that a contract that violates federal law is not necessarily unenforceable.

Green Cross Medical, Inc. v. Gally (April 18, 2017) addressed whether a commercial lease with a medical marijuana grow operation in Arizona was enforceable. John Gally owned commercial property in Winslow, Arizona that he leased to Green Cross Medical to operate a medical marijuana dispensary. Two weeks later, Gally sent a letter to Green Cross revoking the lease. At the time Gally terminated the lease, Green Cross had not received the necessary license to operate a dispensary. However, the lease permitted Green Cross to sublease the property and nothing in the lease stated the lease would be terminated if Green Cross did not receive a license to run a dispensary.

Green Cross sued Gally for breach of contract and attempted to obtain a temporary restraining order to prevent Gally from revoking the lease. Gally argued that the lease was illegal and therefore unenforceable because it involved cannabis distribution. The trial court was persuaded by Gally’s argument and ruled that the lease agreement was indeed unenforceable because violated both federal and state law. Based on this, the trial court did not grant Green Cross the restraining order and it denied Green Cross damages for Gally’s having revoked the lease.

Green Cross appealed the trial court’s decision.  First, the appeals court determined that Green Cross could seek damages against Gally even though Green Cross did not receive a license to operate a dispensary on the leased property because the right to sublease was a valuable property right. As a result, Green Cross was permitted to seek damages for the loss of the lease.

The appeals court also held that the lease was not illegal on under Arizona law. The court stated that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) protects rights of dispensaries to enter into commercial leases and that dispensaries have a contractual right to enter into lease agreements with landlords. The appeals court concluded that “[g]iven the language of the AMMA, a court may not void or refuse to enforce a dispensary’s lease with a landlord simply because the dispensary would be supplying marijuana in compliance with the AMMA.”

The appeals court also rejected Gally’s arguments that he as the landlord could face criminal liability under state law because he was facilitating marijuana distribution by leasing property to a cannabis dispensary. The appeals court pointed to the fact that Gally agreed to execute the lease understanding that Green Cross intended to operate in Arizona’s medical market:

We emphasize that nothing in the AMMA requires a landlord to rent a property to a proposed dispensary. Gally was free not to enter into the lease if he was uncomfortable with the proposed use of the Property. But once he chose to do so, he was not free to rescind his contractual commitments without facing potential monetary liability. Accordingly, leasing property to a medical marijuana dispensary that is in compliance with the AMMA is not illegal under Arizona law. Thus, the superior court erred when it found the lease was void and dismissed the complaint seeking damages for the breach.

The appeals court then acknowledged that federal law prohibits distribution of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and that it is, therefore, illegal under federal law for an Arizona landlord to lease property to a marijuana business. However, the appeals court went on to state this federal illegality “does not render the contract in this case unenforceable under all circumstances.” The court cited to several cases where contracts involving medical marijuana businesses were upheld by courts despite being prohibited under federal law, showing that courts balance the federal government’s interest in enforcing the CSA with states’ interest in permitting the medical use of marijuana.

The appeals court weighed the interests of the federal government and the state of Arizona and held that the lease was not unenforceable simply because it violated the federal CSA. The appeals court explained that federal government enforcement of the CSA against state-compliant marijuana operators had been in flux for years and that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had instructed US Attorneys not to prosecute individuals acting in compliance with the Cole Memo. The court also noted that Congress has prohibited the DOJ from using funds to prosecute people distributing marijuana in compliance with state law. As a side note, that spending provision was recently extended.

The Arizona Appeals Court sent the case back to the trial court to reconsider the facts of the case in light of the appeals court having held that the lease was not unenforceable and that Green Cross may recover damages for Gally’s terminating the lease.

You can find more on cannabis leases here:

 

 

CBD

We previously discussed the two-tier industrial hemp registration system Oregon adopted last year. In brief, the Oregon Department of Agriculture allows registration as either a grower (producer of industrial hemp), or a handler (processor of industrial hemp into commodities, products or agricultural hemp seed). Currently, only registered hemp handlers can process industrial hemp or sell industrial hemp products. However, a bill winding its way through the Oregon legislature could significantly upend the status quo for CBD concentrates and extracts.

Oregon’s hemp advocates should keep a close eye on Senate Bill 1015. When it comes to CBD concentrates and extracts, the bill would open up industrial hemp processing to Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed recreational marijuana processors. The processed CBD concentrates and extracts could then be delivered to recreational marijuana retailers for sale in OLCC licensed dispensaries.

Of course, the bill places some restrictions on OLCC processors:

  • The recreational processor must be registered with OLCC for the express purpose of processing industrial hemp into CBD concentrates and extracts. Presumably, the OLCC would create a new registration process for this purpose;
  • The grower must provide the recreational processor with all test results on the hemp and the recreational processor must retain the test results in its records; and
  • The industrial hemp must still be tracked as outlined in ORS 475B.150.

The bill would also allow the processed CBD products to be delivered to an industrial hemp handler for resale provided that:

  • The CBD products were produced “independently” of any marijuana products. This might require separate processing facilities to prevent cross-contamination;
  • The products have been properly tested;
  • The products are tracked as required by ORS 475B.150; and
  • The THC concentration in the products are below a threshold to be set by the OLCC (probably .3 percent if the OLCC follows the Department of Agriculture’s lead).

The bill is now before the Joint Committee on Marijuana Regulation, which will hold a public meeting on Senate Bill 1015 today (May 9), at the Oregon Capitol Building. If you want to get involved in the future of Oregon’s hemp industry, arrive at Room HR B before 5:00pm. Also, take note that the Committee will be considering this classic “gut-and-stuff” amendment, so you can safely ignore the text of the bill as originally introduced.

Cannabis attorneysThe owners of a vineyard in Yamhill County, Oregon, filed a lawsuit in April to block a neighboring property owner from using his land to grow and process cannabis. The plaintiffs alleged that the odor and runoff from the cannabis farm will negatively affect their grapes and claim to have already lost one buyer. Another neighbor, who has plans to turn its property into a vineyard as well, has joined the lawsuit.

The case is interesting because it is in response to a novel fact situation that has not been the subject of much real-world study or legal precedent.

The idea that the odor of cannabis plants could materially alter the quality of grapes in an adjacent parcel of land is a significant divergence from more typical odor-related lawsuits that allege a neighbor’s cannabis activities create a nuisance. Those lawsuits have sometimes succeeded, but in this instance the trier of fact will need to determine whether there actually is an impact on the grapes. Though the plaintiffs say they have already lost a buyer, it is unclear whether that was because the buyer speculated there could be an impact on the grapes or whether there was in fact such an impact. The case has not gotten far enough along for discovery to reveal exactly what kind of evidence the plaintiffs actually have.

As for the cannabis farm owner, he states that he can grow cannabis on his property without seeking permission because it is zoned for that kind of agricultural use and because he is following all rules and regulations. He also asserts that he uses cannabis processing techniques to minimize the smell from his property.

Depending on the results of this case, the issue of adjacent cannabis farms and wine vineyards may be an issue for the Oregon state legislature. Both the cannabis and wine industries are important components of Oregon’s economy and there is significant overlap between locations.

The lawsuit was filed in Yamhill County earlier this week so there is a long way to go for it to reach resolution. If it goes to trial, the court’s reasoning when it comes to the interaction between the two crops and the relationship with their owners’ property and economic rights could be instructive for similar conflicts in the future. We will keep an eye on this case and update you as the lawsuit progresses.