During the hearing of the case, the Los Angeles Supreme Court ruled that the plan sought by the court to stop the alleged illegal sales was “overburdened”.
Elliott Lewis, CEO of Long Beach-based Catalyst Hashish Co., the company that financed the lawsuit, said the ruling, posted ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, shows the case is over. Lewis indicated that he was unlikely to appeal his dismissal, although he said that his fight was not over.
Lewis, who has been waging a criminal campaign against so-called “burner sellers” and their associates for years, alleges in the lawsuit that Glass Space was knowingly working with companies that moved legal marijuana production underground from California. Used to do. Market National.
Pass judgment on: DCC is accountable for inspection
Some time ago, Lewis was sued by Glass Space by an industry entity known as 562 Cut Rate Made, one of Catalyst’s subsidiaries, alleging violations of “unfair business practices” through Glass Space. which he said was publicly traded. Organizing illegal lobbying in the competition.
In a temporary ruling, the judge decided that by implementing the court layout sought by Catalyst, Glass Space would be barred from selling to sellers who then illegally resell their cannabis, pending the court’s decision to It will not be possible to implement. Rather, he said it is the job of regulators positioned on the hemp sector to monitor such compliance.
“The essence of the pervasive business practices is that the defendants sell to licensed distributors, but knowing (and conspiring to ensure) that the distributors will distribute to black market buyers who then sell the product at those prices With whom the plaintiff cannot compete. The Court does not know how it would begin monitoring it if such an injunction is issued,” the judgment said.
“This problem is complicated by the fact that the (State Department of Cannabis Control) is already charged with investigating and enforcing illegal cannabis distributors and purchasers,” the ruling continued. It ended without issuing any findings on the underlying merits of the lawsuit, particularly that Glass Spaces knowingly provides illegal “burner distros”.
Lewis said the decision could also be overturned following a hearing Tuesday regarding a motion filed by Glass Space.
His attorney Jeff Augustini wrote in an email. naive marketplace file He believes the ruling is “flawed” and that the decision “must decide the case on its merits rather than ‘buying’ GH’s argument that it would be too difficult and burdensome for the court to order a stay.” ” Engaging in unfairly competitive conduct.”
However Lewis said he was not expecting much of an upset, and that the matter was probably over.
“The court is refusing to give its verdict. The verdict is, ‘We are refusing to govern,'” said Lewis, reached Monday morning. “The court, it is easier for them to hand it back to DCC than to rule on it. So it’s not completely meaningless. I think there are other ways to skin this cat.”
Representatives for Glass Space did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday morning Inexperienced Marketplace File.
However the company has vehemently denied Lewis’s allegations and is the first to file a defamation suit against him. That case was ultimately dropped in May, partly because Glass Space did its best to avoid disclosing the names of the vendors to whom it sells its marijuana. Lewis said this was a major dispute between the parties in both complaints.
“If we had passed this, we would have been back to where we were in terms of the defamation case, which was getting their list of distributors, which is obviously what they don’t want to give up and they (defamation) Why was the lawsuit dismissed ), Lewis said.
DCC lawsuit is ongoing
The judge overseeing Lewis’s case against Glass Space also indicated that his alternative pending lawsuit – against DCC that Lewis alleges was negligence in business oversight that allowed Burner distros to run rampant – Have the right type of channel to search for, versus immediately focusing on the glass space.
The ruling asserted, “Specifically, Defendant provides judicially notifiable documentation showing that an entity related in some way to Plaintiff currently has proceedings pending against DCC in Orange County Superior Court, Which is seeking to compel DCC to implement the statutory scheme.”
That lawsuit, which was filed as recently as 2021, is scheduled to go to trial in Orange County Superior Court later on April 1, according to court data.
Lewis said, “It seems like it’s playing a role in their decision making, which is, ‘Hey, you’re already going after the DCC, just handle it with them.'”
Lewis said the immediate understandable frustration with the court’s decision is that, from his point of view, the DCC has done no serious business oversight, which was why he filed the first lawsuit against the company in three years. past. It accused the DCC of “turning a blind eye” to the mess of burner distros and criminal cannabis being shipped out illegally.
“Our position has always been that the DCC doesn’t really do anything,” Lewis said. “His report card is an F.”
lacourt.org_tentativeRulingNet_ui_ResultPopup.aspx
Discover more from news2source
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
