MedMen Petitions Court to Void West Hollywood’s Grants of Recreational Cannabis Licenses

The entrance to MedMen’s West Hollywood store at 8208 Santa Monica Blvd.

MedMen, one of four operators of recreational cannabis stores in West Hollywood, has petitioned the Los Angeles County Superior Court to void the city’s lengthy, complex and expensive process for vetting applications for permanent recreational cannabis licenses, a process in which it and the other three failed to qualify.

In a petition filed yesterday, Farmacy Collective, the local entity through which MedMen operates in West Hollywood, asked that the court halt any action required to complete the application process for the winners of the eight recreational cannabis licenses, who still must obtain state cannabis licenses and local business licenses. It also asked that the court order the City of West Hollywood to dismiss the independent panel chosen to evaluate the applications and appoint a new one. And it asked that the evaluation panel be required to give priority in its assessments to existing cannabis businesses. MedMen argues that that was the intent of some of those who crafted the 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California known as Prop 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.

The request, if granted, would have a major impact on the eight winners of recreational cannabis licenses, who have been securing retail space, hiring designers for those spaces and applying for the state and local business licenses. They include Aeon West Hollywood Inc., the Artist Tree LLC (The Artist Tree), Calma Weho LLC (Calma), Essence Weho LLC (Essence), J&P Consulting (Budberry), PDLP JV LLC (Greenwolf West Hollywood), Pleasure Med LLC (Pleasure Med), and Redwood Retail LLC (Lord Jones). Several prominent local residents and business people are associated with those winners. For example, Jason Illoulian of Faring, the real estate developer, is a partner in Calma. Soheil Yamini, the owner of Pink Dot on Sunset, is one of the owners of Greenwolf.  And Brian Robinson, owner of the Pleasure Chest, is also the owner of Pleasure Med.

In 2017, the West Hollywood City Council agreed to a plan in which the city would grant eight cannabis licenses in five different categories. The city agreed to grandfather in existing medical cannabis dispensaries and give them temporary licenses to sell recreational cannabis, one of the most sought-after categories, while the application process continued. The medical cannabis retailers that were granted the temporary licenses are Alternative Herbal Health Services at 7828 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles Patients & Caregivers Group at 7213 Santa Monica Blvd., MedMen WeHo at 8208 Santa Monica Blvd. and Zen Healing at 8464 Santa Monica Blvd. The City Council in February agreed to extend the temporary recreational cannabis licenses until the end of this year but did not set an absolute expiration date. It is widely expected that the holders of those temporary licenses, who have banded together to lobby under the name “the Originals,” will be major contributors to campaigns of candidates in the November 2020 general election, in which John Duran and John Heilman are expected to run for re-election. Duran has opposed the licensing process, arguing that West Hollywood should adopt a “free market” approach.

In its petition, MedMen not only criticized the city for failing to give any priority in the assessment to the existing cannabis business, but it also alleged bias on the part of Lynne Lyman, one of the five people who ranked the applicants. Lyman is the former California State Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, whose mission is to advance policies that reduce the harms of both drug use and drug prohibition. The Drug Policy Alliance was one of the co-authors of Proposition 64. The petition says that Lyman, while working with Drug Policy Alliance, had had a falling out with MedMen. Ironically, in support of its argument, the petition cites Lyman’s statement as an author of Prop. 64 that existing medical cannabis businesses should be given priority in ranking.

MedMen has been particularly aggressive in pushing for getting a permanent recreational sales license. It was a major donor to the three incumbents who won re-election to the Council in the March 2019 election.  Dozens of employees of the local MedMen shops organize to turn out at City Council meeting wearing their red t-shirts with the MedMen logo when a cannabis-related item is on the agenda.

Medmen and the rest of the Originals have garnered support from some unlikely places. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 770 has been a strong supporter of their effort to be granted permanent city licenses to sell adult cannabis. And the head of the Hollywood Chapter of the National Organization For Women, John Erickson, has addressed the City Council on NOW’s behalf asking that the Originals be given permanent licenses.

Under state law, MedMen and all cannabis businesses with 20 or more employees must have a “labor peace agreement” with a union. But while it has strong support from Local 770, MedMen is being sued by employees of its West Hollywood location for making them work more than eight hours a day without overtime pay, for not giving them state-required 30-minute lunch breaks and for not maintaining accurate pay records. MedMen also has been accused of taking tips away from its California employees. Equity Guru, a website that provides investment information about the tech and cannabis industries, reported in July 2018 that it employees of MedMen have complained that the company has subtracted tips given to employees from their take-home pay. In their various debates about whether to grant permanent recreational sales licenses to the Originals, these are not issues that members of the West Hollywood City Council raise

Despite it not being an obvious women’s rights issue, Erickson, who is widely believed to be a candidate in the November 2020 City Council elections, said that Hollywood NOW is supporting the Originals because they support unions.


17
Please leave a reply of no more than 300 words, focused on the issue and not fellow commenters.

avatar
2000
11 Comment threads
6 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
15 Comment authors
VigilantHamGeraldkennyJohn Ryan Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Ham
Guest
Ham

the whole pot movement…….is for losers. if it helps sick people that’s a good thing.

Gerald
Guest
Gerald

Medmen is a great place. The other stores are making this up. So sad

John Ryan
Guest
John Ryan

MedMen is too EXPENSIVE. Their prices are prohibitive, and the way they treat their employees is shameful. There are plenty of alternatives close by…..boycott MEDMEN!

Eric Jon Schmidt
Guest
Eric Jon Schmidt

I think this is an excellent idea. The entire process designed by the City smelled bad right from the beginning. I don’t endorse any particular store, but this process is not fair and equitable. Anything that even looks like it was designed for preferential treatment should be thoroughly examined by an unbiased source such as the Los Angeles Superior Court. Too many decisions are made within the “City limits” which need a second look by “outsiders”. Full disclosure: I don’t use cannabis, but I support the rights for those who do.

Josh Kurpies
Guest
Josh Kurpies

Statement: “The entire process designed by the City smelled bad right from the beginning.” [] How so? Please explain by providing evidence, or at least examples. Statement: “Anything that even looks like it was designed for preferential treatment should be thoroughly examined by an unbiased source such as the Los Angeles Superior Court.” [] What part of this looks like it was designed for preferential treatment? The City went to great lengths to create criteria for evaluation and even further lengths to create a professional and fair committee to evaluate said criteria. The Council, thus far, has not wavered from… Read more »

Vigilant
Guest
Vigilant

Josh Kurpies, you are correct. Irresponsible accusations and marinated and misinterpreted facts serve no one.

Charles E. Elkins
Guest
Charles E. Elkins

I would never visit let alone purchase from Madmen. To me Madmen is corporate. Eventually they will be shown how to operate without paying any taxes of any kind. Like most corporations. If as a medical patient go from state to state to buy different cannabis. I walk a fine line of arrest as any Joe Public individual. Madmen, can go to any state. Support your shop that do you right. There are legal shops that do not charge medical.patients tax. Don’t listen to these greedy rejects. I always pray they go belly up. Don’t buy from them, and they… Read more »

Larry Block
Guest
Larry Block

Sad how so much money being made off the city is being used against the city. I’m not going back to Medmen.

Jim Nasium
Guest
Jim Nasium

MedMen should stick to what their name suggests, MEDical.

Jane on Havenhurst
Guest
Jane on Havenhurst

Great to hear! Imagine the discovery showing the total corruption in West Hollywood!

Eric Jon Schmidt
Guest
Eric Jon Schmidt

Agreed

JF1
Guest
JF1

Sore losers.

Bill G Skywatcher
Guest
Bill G Skywatcher

What a mess. The problem, in my mind, were the criteria used to adjudicate the licenses. For example, who really cared how “innovative” a regular shop needed to be? Do we adjudicate whether a Pavillions or CVS are innovative when we grant a business license, and how do you even adjudicate a criteria like that? Even if customers could somehow be transported via laser beam from room to room, how effective would something like that be? At this point, it would be reprehensible to deny the licenses to those granted, we should just simply grandfather in the ones that already… Read more »

kenny
Guest
kenny

agreed! grandfather them in, all three Originals! the pioneers deserve the right to stick around!

WeHoMikey
Guest
WeHoMikey

They participated in the process all the way until it was clear they couldn’t manipulate the Council to conform to their wishes. Only then did they decide it “isn’t fair”, and that one of the people ranking applications is “biased”

If the process isn’t fair, why not file your suit *before* you submit your application?

WeHoMikey
Guest
WeHoMikey

Oh, and since applicants have to come before the Planning Commission as part of the process, why is Councilmember Heilman’s appointee, John Ericson, weighing in on behalf of some of the Applicants? Talk about an appearance of bias…

Steve Martin
Guest
Steve Martin

Exactly; you would have thought they would have objected to Lynne Lyman at the start of the process if they believed her to be prejudiced rather than at this late date.