The Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission on Wednesday formally appealed to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals an order by a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge that allowed several plaintiff companies to remove AMCC commissioners and obtain numerous documents. asked the court to cancel it.
On appeal by the AMCC, Judge James Anderson issued the order because the plaintiffs had not yet exhausted all administrative remedies and there was insufficient evidence that an Alabama Open Meetings violation had occurred. claims that it was a mistake.
“The trial court exceeded its discretion and rendered the following judgment. [the discovery order] “Because the challengers have not met the prerequisites to obtain discovery on either the (Alabama Administrative Procedure Act) or (Alabama Open Meetings Act) claims,” ​​the petition for writ of mandamus states. is stated.
Anderson issued the order in early January after AMCC granted its third medical marijuana license. It was also the third time a court has halted the issuance of a license, finding that AMCC failed to comply with state law and other requirements at various points during the process.
AMCC publicly acknowledged that the scoring process, which was the focus of the plaintiff companies' first lawsuit, was “defective” and voluntarily revoked licenses granted after the lawsuit was filed.
After a second round of licenses was granted and more lawsuits were filed or ongoing lawsuits were amended, both sides primarily focused on AMCC's lack of compliance with the Open Meetings Act and the Alabama Administrative Procedures Act. The mediation was centered on the failure to comply with the law. Governs all state institutions. After completing mediation, AMCC basically once again acknowledged its mistake and agreed to make certain changes. They also agreed to restart the licensing process again.
Following a third attempt in December, the AMCC's continued lack of transparency, particularly in relation to AOMA requirements, and the scoring process that allowed a small number of commissioners to effectively refuse to rate companies More lawsuits were filed and revisions were made over the issue. License – Apparently it violates AAPA. The plaintiff companies asked the court to re-issue a temporary restraining order that would prevent the issuance of licenses and allow for discovery, including depositions, to answer questions about AMCC's difficult licensing process.
AMCC said in its appeal that Mr. Anderson should have denied the request because, as part of the administrative process governing AMCC, plaintiffs have the option to appeal AMCC's decisions and may be granted a hearing. It is claimed that However, Anderson addressed this issue in his order, noting that the appeals process would be essentially futile because AMCC has already issued a limited number of licenses.
In fact, Mr. Anderson gave AMCC additional time to consider halting the licensing process itself until the appeals already filed by several companies are heard and processed. At its Dec. 28 meeting, AMCC passed a motion denying the issuance of such an injunction and said it would proceed with issuing the license.
Additionally, Anderson held hearings on these issues, during which the parties presented evidence and argued their claims before him. After this hearing, Mr. Anderson determined that the allegations of misconduct, particularly those relating to his AOMA and his AAPA violations, were sufficient to proceed with discovery. Appellate courts typically stick to procedural issues and are less involved in issues related to the justices' opinions.
During a status hearing last week, Anderson told the parties that “limited discovery” would help the court rule on various issues as the case progresses.
However, AMCC argues in its appeal that allowing the commissioner's deposition amounts to harassment.
As it stands, almost three years after the law allowing medical marijuana was passed, the AMCC still has not been able to issue a single marijuana license.
