Second motion for TRO heard in light of change request rates

Around 30 people crept into a live-streamed hearing Wednesday for Judge Patricia Joyce to hear a motion for a temporary restraining order against the program.

Sarcoxie Nursery Cultivation Center and Infusions Center, GVMS, and Missouri Medical Manufacturing, and Missouri Medical Products have retained Joe Bednar of the Spencer Fane law firm to represent them in this second motion for a TRO. This TRO seeks to halt the Department of Health and Senior Services from transferring any license, allowing changes to any ownership set up, granting variances, or promulgating any rules without court approval and plaintiffs’ being provided an opportunity to be heard by the court.

Defendants of the suit are the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, and Randall Williams and Lyndall Fraker, in their respective official capacities as Director of the Department of Health and Senior Services, and Director of the Section for Medical Marijuana Regulation of the Department of Health and Senior Services.

The case cites a Greenway story from Thursday, April 23, regarding news that 70-80% of licensees will likely have a change request of some form. There are many forms of change requests, from ownership to material deviations.

“The Constitution did not limit the number of licenses that could be issued,” Bednar said in the hearing. “The way this was set up, licenses were set up by score and ranked…”

Bednar contends that the scoring criteria were set up by rule and some not, which has led to post-licensing issues for the Department of Health and Senior Services, the suit’s defendant.

“[DHSS] is exacerbating their original errors,” Bednar said in the hearing.

   

DHSS was represented by Assistant Attorney General Ross Kaplan of the Missouri Attorney General’s Office.

Asking for the motion to be denied and dismissed, Kaplan said the TRO shouldn’t be in front of the judge at the moment, that the relief that is asked for is not appropriate and should not be granted, and that the motion does not meet the Dataphase burden for demonstrating a need for injunctive relief.

“Until his client gets what they want, they’re going to keep picking at the Department,” Kaplan rebutted in the hearing.

Bednar concluded the hearing, reiterating his case that the Department’s licensing process has been “arbitrary and capricious” based on his interpretation of the amendment and rules.

Judge Joyce said she would take the case under consideration and have a response soon.

Read the motion below.