Many CA cannabis companies haven’t any right to process that is due court filing asserts

California’s attorney general argued in a recent court filing that none of the state’s cannabis businesses operating on provisional licenses are entitled to due process under state law.

The due-process situation arose when Hayward-based Harrens Lab filed suit against the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) after the agency revoked the lab’s business that is provisional final month.

The lab argued it absolutely was eligible to an appeals hearing to dispute the costs that resulted in the revocation.

In a reply compared to that suit, Ca Attorney General Xavier Becerra argued with respect to the BCC that none associated with organizations running on provisional licenses have actually any right to process that is due those same permits were designed to be temporary while businesses awaited a decision about their annual license applications.

The provisional licenses stem from a stopgap program, established in 2018, that was designed to give California marijuana businesses and regulators more time to streamline the licensing process while keeping the industry functioning.

Roughly 83% of the legal California market – 8,280 of the 9,950 business that is total – are still running on provisional licenses, in accordance with information from state regulators. Their state has up to now granted just 1,670 licenses that are annual

In his filing, Becerra wrote that Harrens Lab claims “that their right to a hearing prior to revocation of their provisional cannabis license finds support under the process that is due associated with Ca Constitution.

“They are mistaken.”

Rather, Becerra noted, provisional licenses vanish when any dedication – whether approval or rejection – is created in regards to the fate associated with license that is annual, which means any provisional licensee is not entitled to the same rights as a business with a full annual permit.

“It is not reasonable to expect that a provisional license confers any permanent entitlement,” Becerra wrote.

“Any subjective unilateral belief Petitioners had about the nature of their rights under a provisional license is not supported in statute and ”( that is unreasonable*)– John Schroyer

Latest posts