❗ Major Cannabis Industry Legal Update ❗
MAJOR INDUSTRY VICTORY.
Many of you are aware that California cities often use Development Agreement’s (“DA”) in lieu of, or in addition to, passing a Tax Measure to capitalize on the perceived "Green Rush" and fill budgetary gaps at the expense of a struggling business. Since there is no actual “development” involved, the purpose of the DAs in this context is to force businesses to pay a "tax" (often disguised as a “Community Benefit Fee” or “Public Benefit Fee”) as a condition of licensure. Any business that fails to pay the “tax” faces the threat of its license being revoked, which the City of Patterson sought to do to Catalyst – Patterson.
But we fought back – and I am proud to say that Catalyst Cannabis Co. and its partners in Catalyst - Patterson secured a MAJOR victory last week in Stanislaus County, where the Court granted our Preliminary Injunction request to enjoin the City from revoking the Catalyst - Paterson's cannabis license for failure to pay the DA’s unlawful "Public Benefit” fee requirements.
Specifically, the Court ruled that we had established a probability of success on the merits on our claims that the City's DA, and its Public Benefits fee requirements, violate "Mitigation Fee Act" and constitute an unlawful "taking" in violation of the both the U.S. and California Constitutions.
While the case is far from over, this ruling immediately calls into question the legitimacy and propriety of existing Development Agreements that are used to extort cannabis businesses across the state.
A huge thank you to our outside-counsel Jeff Augustini for securing this for us, and a huge thank you to our CEO, Elliot Lewis, for always pushing back when others would buckle or surrender.
You saved a lot of jobs today.