Dispute over the ownership of a Marijuana Dispensary.
Objections filed to the final report of a receiver involving the winding up of the affairs of a marijuana dispensary.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants published an online article reporting that she was “operating an allegedly illegal marijuana-growing operation in San Bernardino,” that she was a “drug lord” and making “millions of dollars per month running the operation,” and that she “paid cash for two warehouse and a home from the operation.” Plaintiff contends these statements were defamatory, because she does not operate a marijuana business and is not involved in a marijuana operation. Plaintiff admits that she leases space to commercial cannabis operators, but she has never been a marijuana operator and has no interest in any marijuana operations. Plaintiff has no profit sharing arrangement with her commercial cannabis tenants. Plaintiff alleges she has suffered damages because of Defendant’s false reporting that she is a marijuana operator.
Plaintiffs are the owners of a marijuana dispensary. They executed an initial partnership agreement and operated a marijuana dispensary at the premises leased from Defendants. Thereafter, the City of Los Angeles passed Proposition D (“ICO”), which imposed zoning restrictions on marijuana dispensaries. Plaintiffs did not possess a “Pre-ICO” license, which provided recipients with “limited immunity” to operate within the city of Los Angeles despite Proposition D. To cure the lack of a Pre-ICO license, Plaintiffs partnered with Defendant which operated a marijuana dispensary near Plaintiff’s dispensary pursuant to a Pre-ICO license. Plaintiffs and Defendant executed a joint venture operating agreement. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant conspired with others to force Plaintiffs from operating or participating in the joint venture.