Judge Denies New Companies' Motion to Dismiss Medical Marijuana Lawsuit Against NY
Judge W. Brooks DeBow, who is presiding over the case in Albany County Supreme Court, issued an order Monday denying the recently awarded medical marijuana companies' motion to dismiss the lawsuit against the state filed by the original five medical marijuana licensees who opposed extending the program to the additional grower-distributors .
October 05, 2017 at 04:57 PM
4 minute read
A state Supreme Court judge has denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against the state for increasing the number of medical marijuana licenses from the original five.
Justice W. Brooks DeBow, who is presiding over the case in Albany County Supreme Court, issued an order Monday denying the recently awarded medical marijuana companies' motion to dismiss the lawsuit, New York Medical Cannabis Industry Association v. New York State Department of Health, 2848-17.1. The suit was filed by the original five medical marijuana licensees against the state.
The intervenors in the suit were issued a license by the state to grow and sell the drug in August (NYLJ, Aug. 1), despite the lawsuit previously filed by a trade group that represents the initial licensees who oppose the additional grower-distributors.
In late August, the five new medical marijuana companies—who ranked six through 10 when the state sought bidders for the medical marijuana program in June 2015—submitted a cross-motion to dismiss the initial five medical marijuana lawsuits against the state arguing that the proceedings in its entirety lacked standing and on timeliness grounds.
Lawyers for the intervenors—Citiva Medical, Fiorello Pharmaceuticals, New York Canna, PalliaTech NY and Valley Agriceuticals—claimed during oral arguments in mid-September (NYLJ, Sept. 12) that the five original medical marijuana companies could not demonstrate that they have suffered an injury after the state effectively doubled the amount of companies in the program.
“While the nature of the anticipated injury to plaintiff/petitioner's members—i.e. economic harm from increased market competition—may be insufficient to support standing, it is an injury-in-fact because they will be injured by having their market share decreased by half,” DeBow wrote in his decision, filed with the Albany County Supreme Court Thursday.
The New York Medical Cannabis Industry Association, which is being represented in the lawsuit against the state by Jennifer Kavney Harvey, a litigation partner at Albany-based Couch White (NYLJ, Sept. 28), said they were reviewing DeBow's decision.
Lawyers for the intervening companies—which include attorneys from Syracuse-based Bond Schoeneck & King; Loeb & Loeb; Duane Morris; Sher Tremonte in New York City and Massachusetts-based Shlansky Law Group—didn't immediately respond to request for comment.
DeBow also dismissed a motion by a California-based company to file an amicus brief in the case. The companies who were recently awarded medical marijuana licenses filed a memorandum of law late last week in opposition to West Sacramento Management Group LLC's motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in the lawsuit (NYLJ, Sept. 28) arguing that the proposed amicus curiae brief “lacked any unique legal analysis.”
In his order, DeBow writes that he's denying West Sacramento's motion because the “causes of action that are primarily pertinent to the proposed amicus brief will be dismissed, and thus, the arguments asserted by movant are moot.”
“Second, movant is not seeking to illuminate issues as a friend of the court, but has submitted an argumentative brief in pursuit of advancing its own interests and those of similarly situated entities,” he continued. “
Sam Breslin of Albany-based full service firm Breslin Law Group, who is representing West Sacramento in the proceedings, did not immediately respond to request for comment.
The New York Medical Cannabis Industry Association filed the lawsuit in May arguing that allowing more companies to manufacture marijuana will cannibalize an industry that has struggled since its inception in 2016. As of March 30, the state had collected just $585,000 in tax revenue from the sale of medical marijuana in New York, far less than the $4 million in revenue from a 7 percent excise tax on medical marijuana the Cuomo administration had projected when the program began last year.
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 AllEuropean, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
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