More than four years after the process of awarding medical marijuana provisioning licenses in the City of Warren began, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a decision Thursday ruling the 15 licenses originally granted are valid and that the city’s marijuana review committee did not violate the Open Meetings Act during the process of evaluating and scoring applicants.
The decision in the case known as Pinebrook LLC vs. the City of Warren focused on the role of the marijuana committee, specifically if it was a decision-making public body that was subject to the OMA.
The Michigan Court of Appeals decision states the ultimate decision on who was to receive licenses rested with the city council, not the review committee, and thus the review committee was not subject to the OMA and in turn, the plaintiffs’ claims that their due process was violated had no merit.
Controversy was sparked in October of 2019 when the city’s marijuana review committee submitted their assessment of more than 60 applicants to the Warren City Council. Based on those recommendations, the council selected 15 recipients to which medical marijuana licenses would be awarded.
Several companies that did not receive licenses immediately filed lawsuits in Macomb County Circuit Court contending the committee’s scoring system for applicants was flawed and that it had violated the OMA multiple times. Judge Carl Marlinga ruled the committee did indeed violate the OMA by holding some 13 meetings that were not open to the general public and in April of 2020, ruled that all licenses issued by the committee were invalid.
Marlinga reiterated that decision in September of 2021 after the Warren City Council approved a settlement a month earlier that allowed the 15 companies originally awarded the licenses to retain them and added three more available licenses bringing the total number of medical marijuana provisioning licenses to 18. Marlinga said the settlement violated his order, that the 15 medical licenses awarded were void and the case then moved to the appellate court.
the decision from the Court of Appeals states Marlinga’s decision was incorrect because the function of the marijuana committee was not that of a decision-making body but an advisory committee not subject to the OMA.
The city council still has the option to approve recreational marijuana licenses. The process would be separate from that of medical licenses and would not automatically award recreational licenses to the 15 companies currently holding medical licenses. Per state regulations, the process for awarding recreational licenses must be competitive.
“The city council’s next decision will be if they are going to open applications for recreational licenses,” said Warren Mayor James Fouts. “Currently, recreational marijuana is not allowed in Warren, but it will be up to the city council if they want to change that.”
The city’s marijuana committee that originally scored the medical marijuana applications has been criticized for mishandling the scoring of applicants and holding multiple meetings closed to the public, which sparked costly litigation. City Attorney Ethan Vinson, former city council president Cecil St. Pierre Jr., current councilman Ron Papandrea, former city Director of Public Service Richard Sabaugh and former councilman Steve Warner were part of the body.
Former councilpersons Robert Boccomino and Keith Sadowski were committee alternates.
VInson and St. Pierre said they feel vindicated by the Court of Appeals decision and believe it will make the City of Warren more attractive to prospective recreational marijuana businesses should the city council opt to allow those licenses.
“No question it opens doors,” said St. Pierre.
“This just puts to rest all of the lawsuits,” said Vinson. “Although, somebody may take it up to the Supreme Court, which would delay things.”
Vinson noted it has been his opinion since the marijuana review committee was formed that it was not a public body subject to the OMA and is pleased the Court of Appeals concurs.
“I feel vindicated,” said VInson. “I truly believe that no matter what we had done back then, we were going to get sued because that is what has happened in a lot of cities.”
St. Pierre, who was hired to work in the city attorney’s office in June, and has been criticized for his role on the marijuana committee with some blaming him for causing the years-long litigation in the case, says he too feels exonerated.
“Hopefully there are no further lawsuits because any kind of scoring is not due process,” said St. Pierre. “We were vindicated on that as well; Judge Marlinga was wrong.”
A call to Thomas Lauzon of LivWell Enlightened Health, one of the original medical marijuana license recipients and an intervenor in the Pinebrook LLC case, was not immediately answered.
Richard Sulaka, attorney for plaintiff HRS Retail, said he had not had a chance to read the entire decision and did not want to comment on it before doing so.
