Dude, Where's My Marijuana License? Florida Suit by Dispensary That Missed Deadline by 27 Minutes
Dan Bushell and David Kotler are representing Edward Miller & Son Inc. in the company's lawsuit against the Florida Department of Health. The nursery's application to cultivate marijuana was purportedly denied because it missed an application deadline by 27 minutes.
March 14, 2019 at 07:13 PM
3 minute read
A Florida appellate court is allowing an aspiring cannabis cultivator to proceed with its lawsuit against the Florida Department of Health, with two South Florida attorneys at the helm.
The First District Court of Appeal denied the health department's writ of prohibition seeking to halt legal action by Edward Miller & Son Inc., a nursery based in Martin County. The court instead sided with the company, which also serves Palm Beach County.
Edward Miller & Son filed suit against the department in April 2016 after its application for a medical marijuana license was denied in 2015.
Boca Raton lawyer David Kotler represents Miller, alongside Fort Lauderdale appellate attorney Dan Bushell. According to Bushell, the plaintiff is anxious to have its day in court, and hopes the litigation helps it secure a long-awaited medical marijuana license.
“We're pleased that we now get to move forward with the trial. We wanted to go forward with it in October” 2018, Bushell said, referencing the case's original trial date. “Miller & Son is looking forward to its timely day in court.”
Eduardo Lombard, the Tallahassee attorney representing the Florida Department of Health, did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.
Although state regulators claim they denied the company's application because it arrived 27 minutes after the application deadline, the complaint alleges the bid was doomed from the start. Citing Rule 64-4.002, which outlines the stipulations for obtaining a medical marijuana license, the plaintiff contends the Florida Department of Health selectively enforced its own procedures.
Read the complaint:
“While the department employed a hyper-technical and strict interpretation of Rule 64-4.002's deadlines in disallowing Miller's application from the review process, the department has disregarded more serious violations of Rule 64-4.002's deadlines,” the complaint said.
Following a public records request, Miller discovered other entities had been granted medical marijuana licenses despite failing to meet other requirements stated in the rule.
“Despite disallowing Miller's application from the scoring process due to missing a deadline by mere minutes, the department permitted other applicants to submit required documentation weeks after the deadline,” the suit said. The plaintiff attributed this skirting of the rules to pre-existing relationships between dispensaries and state officials.
Prior to appealing to the First DCA, the department filed two motions for summary judgments, both of which Leon Circuit Judge Karen Gievers denied.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250