Lawsuit Aiming to Torch Pa.'s Medical Marijuana Program Goes Up in Smoke
A three-judge panel rejected Keystone ReLeaf's request for an injunction against the Pennsylvania Department of Health and other state agencies.
April 25, 2018 at 02:42 PM
3 minute read
Medical marijuana.
A lawsuit filed by a cannabis group that was unable to obtain marijuana dispensary permits—which later asked for a total halt and rewrite of Pennsylvania's medical marijuana program—was nothing more than a pipe dream, the Commonwealth Court has ruled.
A three-judge panel rejected Keystone ReLeaf's request for an injunction against the Pennsylvania Department of Health and other state agencies. ReLeaf asked that the requirements for awarding dispensary permits be upended, a request that, if granted, would have barred current patients' access to medical marijuana.
ReLeaf specifically took issue with the scoring process involved in granting permits—it filed two dispensary permit applications, both of which were denied after failing to score higher than other applicants in the region. ReLeaf argued the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act is unconstitutional. It also claimed the permit process is arbitrary and that the state keeps its grading methods secret.
In the court's opinion, Judge Michael Wojcik said ReLeaf's challenge was insufficient and also that its appeals of the permit denials were still ongoing.
“In sum, petitioner has not made a clear showing that an exception to the doctrine of administrative remedies applies,” Wojcik said. “Petitioner has not presented a facial constitutional challenge to the act or temporary regulations nor shown how the administrative remedy before the department is inadequate. Our review of the department's administrative review process satisfies us that it offers unsuccessful applicants an adequate remedy to challenge their permit denials and the permitting process. Because petitioner's administrative appeal is ongoing, a judgment here would be inappropriate”
ReLeaf's attorney, Seth Tipton of Florio Perrucci Steinhardt & Fader in Bethlehem, did not return a call for comment.
Jarad Handelman of Elliott Greenleaf represented the Health Department in the case and did not return a call seeking comment.
Joshua Horn, an attorney who focuses on cannabis law at Fox Rothschild, said that lawyers and companies in the cannabis industry were concerned because ReLeaf's request was “very dangerous for the entire program; they wanted it to be unwound and the licensing process to started over again,” which would have left those relying on marijuana prescriptions out of luck, at least temporarily.
“Is there a lot of money at issue? Yes, but what about all those Pennsylvanians with 17 defined medical conditions who are desperate for relief and who have been put in jeopardy?” Horn said. “So the real winner is not the businesses but the citizens of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”
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 AllImmunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
5 minute readSlip-and-Fall Suit Cleared to Proceed Against Kalahari Indoor Waterpark
3 minute readVolunteering for Voter Protection Efforts, Pa. Firms Brace for Contentious Election
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Ex-CFO of San Francisco Law Firms Pleads Guilty to $1.3M Embezzlement Scheme, DOJ Announces
- 2What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
- 3Bucking Industry Trend, Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Class of Partners in Firm History
- 4US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
- 5‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
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