Things have
been far too quiet lately on the litigation front. The silence has been
shattered by a new lawsuit filed against Palmetto Bay; filed June 10, 2024. The
Plaintiff is Plants of Ruskin, LLC, a company incorporated as a Florida Limited
Liability Company.
It appears to have
been incorporated on August 31, 2017.
The principal address is listed as Apollo Beach, FL, 33572.
The mailing address is in Chicago IL 60610 –
where the listed corporate officers also appear to reside.
So the council
failed to resolve. We now have another
major lawsuit - Plants of Ruskin, LLC v. The Village of Palmetto Bay, CaseNo.: 2024-010503-CA-01, assigned to the Honorable Mavel Ruiz who will be called upon to resolve this matter.
The Plaintiff
is seeking the following:
As to Count I,
Declaratory Judgment (beginning page 12 of 108), the Plaintiff is seeking the
following:
... a
declaratory judgment in its favor declaring that Sections 30-60.32(d) and
(e)(1) of the Code are unlawful and invalid, and that they should be stricken
because they violate Section 381.986(11)(b)1, Florida Statutes, by imposing
specific limits the numbers of medical marijuana dispensaries that may locate
within the Village, and award such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and proper
.As to
Count II,
Injunctive Relief (beginning page 18 of 108), the Plaintiff is seeking the
following:
An injunction
from the court prohibiting the Village of Palmetto Bay from:
(i). denying the Plaintiffs Application based upon the
ordinance;
(ii). requiring the Plaintiff to submit a “Distance Requirement
Analysis” pursuant to Section 30-60.32(2) of the Village Code;
(iii). imposing any restrictions, duties, obligations or conditions
precedent to approval of (the Plaintiff’s) Application that in any way relate
to or stem from the Ordinances; and
(iv). awarding any other relief as (the) Court deems just and
proper.
Does anyone
have any information as to claims that individual council members have met with
the applicant / plaintiff in private. Just once, can we please have some
detailed disclosures on what occurs in these private meetings – to avoid
disclosure is a serious breach of transparency in my opinion.
State law
states that the Village Council must comply with State Law if it is to allow
the sale of medical marijuana – but state law allows banning the sale of medical
marijuana within a municipality.
I am providing
a link to the actual complaint. Note that it is a large download – 108 pages.
I am also
providing a link to the staff memorandum provided for the March 20, 2024, Committee
of the Whole Meeting. The memorandum is
52 pages. The staff report reveals that:
At the December
18, 2023, Zoning Hearing, Village Staff presented application RZ-23-008, an
ordinance amending Section 30-60.32 (Low-THC Cannabis and Medical Cannabis
Dispensaries, Treatment Facilities and Independent Testing Laboratories) to be
consistent with State law. The item was continued at the request of the Village
Council to allow discussion at a Committee of the Whole workshop.
Staff appears
to be calling out the village council for requesting that this matter be
deferred – from December 18, 2023, to a COW Meeting held in March. Obviously,
we see no action taken nearly six (6) months later – which appears to have led
up to this lawsuit.
This is a far
too common method of dispute resolution – inaction by staff and/or the mayor
and village council resulting in a lawsuit. Once the lawsuit is filed, the current
mayor and village council have a new entity to blame – the courts.
Please note that a transcript from the zoning hearing of Monday, December 18, 2023, is provided as an exhibit to the Complaint filed by Plants of Ruskin, LLC – yes that is right – this item was heard as part of a zoning hearing. The transcript begins on page 22 of the complaint and ends on page 25. The transcript appears incomplete and I could not find any disclosures regarding any ex parte communication between any member of the village council with any interesting party.
I will advise as
to any information I receive. We shall see how this one plays out. This appears
to be a defensible case. How will the village taxpayers make out in this new
litigation?