{"id":69230,"date":"2023-10-10T08:54:36","date_gmt":"2023-10-10T16:54:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2023\/10\/10\/alabama-cannabis-company-files-another-new-lawsuit-over-medical-marijuana-licensing-process\/"},"modified":"2023-10-11T19:46:40","modified_gmt":"2023-10-12T03:46:40","slug":"alabama-cannabis-company-files-another-new-lawsuit-over-medical-marijuana-licensing-process","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2023\/10\/10\/alabama-cannabis-company-files-another-new-lawsuit-over-medical-marijuana-licensing-process\/","title":{"rendered":"Alabama Cannabis Company Files Another New Lawsuit Over Medical Marijuana Licensing Process"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t know what the endgame is, except to file to the end of time.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

By Alander Rocha, Alabama Reflector<\/strong><\/p>\n

A medical cannabis company embroiled in litigation with the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) Friday filed a new motion for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order, ahead of an AMCC meeting on Thursday.<\/p>\n

Alabama Always, which sued the commission<\/a> in June and August over alleged procedural inconsistencies<\/a> and in July over the appointment of former chair Steven Stokes<\/a>, alleged in the new filing that AMCC \u201crepeatedly violated the [Alabama Administrative Procedure Act].\u201d<\/p>\n

The suit alleges that the commission did not comply with a requirement that applicants show they can start cultivating within 60 days and improperly changed rules with a scoring system and application guide.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt its Oct. 13, 2022 meeting, the [AMCC] discussed the creation of \u2018application guides\u2019 containing a \u2018scoring\u2019 process that deviated from the statute and regulations,\u201d the motion stated.<\/p>\n

The new legal action comes as negotiations between AMCC and private companies over licensing to cultivate and distribute medical cannabis appear to have stalled.<\/p>\n

Will Somerville, an attorney representing Alabama Always, said in an interview Monday afternoon that since plaintiffs submitted their proposal during negotiations, they haven\u2019t heard back from the commission.<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t know what they\u2019re doing. So, have [negotiations] fallen through? I don\u2019t know. Have they been ongoing? No. We made a proposal. We thought it was a fair one. And we haven\u2019t heard anything from them since,\u201d Somerville said.<\/p>\n

AMCC Director John McMillan said over the phone on Monday that while the commission is leaving the negotiations to the lawyers, he\u2019s not optimistic \u201cabout anything that\u2019s going to make anybody happy.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t know what the endgame is, except to file to the end of time,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The filing alleged that AMCC not only violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not publishing the rules, but the commission also did not provide a \u201cnotice-and-comment\u201d period.<\/p>\n

\u201cOwing to the repeated miscues in the licensure process, the Compassion Act\u2019s directive to get medical cannabis to the people who need it has been frustrated,\u201d the motion stated. \u201cThe commission and its staff blame Alabama Always and other litigants for the delays, but the real blame lies with the Commission and its failure to follow the law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Montgomery Circuit Court Judge James Anderson in June blocked the state\u2019s new medical cannabis program from going forward<\/a>, in part over issues raised in Alabama Always\u2019 lawsuits. The AMCC has since stayed the process on its own.<\/p>\n

Somerville said that since he hasn\u2019t heard from the commission in three and a half weeks, he wanted to get Alabama Always\u2019s position on the record before the next meeting on Thursday.<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t know what they\u2019re doing,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The lawsuit filed Friday asked the Montgomery Circuit Court to impose an injunction to prevent the commission from relying on \u201cillegal scoring system\u201d used previously; require the AMCC to unredact all application information, except personal identifying information, personal financial information and legitimate trade secrets; require the AMCC to award licenses based on criteria set forth in the Compassion Act; and require the AMCC to enforce the Compassion Act\u2019s requirement that licensees have obtained a $2 million performance bond.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe only way to get the process back on track, and to ensure that medical cannabis is expeditiously made available to the people who need it, is for the court to order the Commission to dispense with the illegal scoring system, and instead award licenses according to the requirements of the Compassion Act and the Commission\u2019s own regulations,\u201d the motion stated.<\/p>\n

The filing also alleged \u201cinappropriate and excessive redactions,\u201d which prevented \u201cproper comparisons among applicants.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cMany of the applicants, including some who received initial awards, heavily redacted their applications, hiding such critical information as their facility location, so that members of the Commission, other applicants, the press, and public could not verify whether they were actually able to satisfy the statutory and regulatory criteria,\u201d according to the motion.<\/p>\n

Somerville said issues with redactions had been brought up but said \u201cit\u2019s time to get the court to do that.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWe think it would be good for other applicants, for the press and for the public,\u201d he said, \u201cto be able to see\u2014does this applicant really have the ability to produce medical cannabis?\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s unclear whether AMCC will vote to award a third round of licensing on Thursday at the commission\u2019s scheduled meeting<\/a>. The commission canceled its September meeting because the counsel for AMCC and plaintiffs did not come to an agreement on a potential solution.<\/p>\n

McMillan said Monday that the commission will have to determine what they will do on Thursday and \u201clet the rest take care of itself.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are also filings from companies that were awarded licenses, some both times, that feel like they\u2019re entitled to a license.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re just going to have to sort it all out, and Judge Anderson will have a lot to do with that, and I got confidence in him,\u201d McMillan said.<\/p>\n

This story was first published by the Alabama Reflector.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Lone Democrat Who Opposed Marijuana Banking Bill In Senate Committee Explains His Vote<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis \/\/ Side Pocket Images.<\/em><\/p>\n

The post Alabama Cannabis Company Files Another New Lawsuit Over Medical Marijuana Licensing Process<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n


\n
\nRead More: Alabama Cannabis Company Files Another New Lawsuit Over Medical Marijuana Licensing Process<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cI don\u2019t know what the endgame is, except to file to the end of time.\u201d By Alander Rocha, Alabama Reflector A medical cannabis company embroiled in litigation with the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) Friday filed a new motion for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order, ahead ofContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":457,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69230"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/457"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69230"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69230\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":69231,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69230\/revisions\/69231"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}