There is an interesting dichotomy between federal and state law when it comes to the cannabis industry. Federally, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is the statute that governs the manufacture,  importation, possession and use of drugs. Cannabis is currently still included on Schedule I of the CSA which effectively prohibits profiting from the possession, cultivation or distribution of marijuana. This stands in direct contrast to several states’ laws that expressly allow for the possession, cultivation or distribution of marijuana. Because of these disparate positions between federal and state law, choice of law/venue provisions in cannabis related contracts are particularly nuanced.

For example, here is a particular Catch-22. If the choice of law provision chooses the federal courts in a particular state (provided there is subject matter jurisdiction), and the lawsuit seeks damages associated with the possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana, a federal court may dismiss the case because it essentially seeks damages that violate the CSA. In contrast, if a cannabis related lawsuit seeks to enforce a trademark violation (Lanham Act) under the same choice of law/venue provision, the federal court might keep the case because the damages aren’t directly associated with the possession, cultivation or distribution of marijuana.  In short, the choice of law/venue provision works in some cases and may result in immediate dismissal in others.

It is even possible that that same federal court could dismiss claims related to the CSA and keep other claims. This happened recently in J. Lilly LLC v. Clearspan Fabric Structures Int’l, Inc. et al., 3:18-cv-01104 (Dist. Or. April 13, 2020). J. Lilly had a license in the State of Oregon to grow and cultivate marijuana. In 2016, J. Lilly and Clearspan entered into a lease agreement for a large greenhouse that would be constructed and delivered by Clearspan through subcontractors. Post-delivery, J. Lilly alleged that the greenhouse was not performed in a workmanlike manner and that the greenhouse had several construction related defects. J. Lilly further alleged that, due to the defects, it could not start cultivating marijuana on its intended timeline resulting in lost profits of $5,400,000. In addition to the lost profits, J. Lilly sought damages associated with the costs to repair or replace the greenhouse. The court dismissed J. Lilly’s claims for lost profits as violative of the CSA on summary judgment, but the remaining claims associated with the construction proceeded in the court.  In essence, the result was a bifurcated case, with J. Lilly now forced to seek different avenues of redress for the lost profit claims.

Clearly, choosing federal court as the preferred venue in a cannabis related contract presents serious issues, which leaves two other options: state court or arbitration. If the choice is state court (or a mix of federal and state courts), amongst many issues, there is the potential of judge or jury related bias, a clogged docket, removal to federal court (which would implicate the issues above), forum non conveniens arguments, and the public nature of the dispute.

This makes arbitration, or some other form of alternative dispute resolution, the most logical forum for cannabis-related litigation. It provides flexibility, privacy, and expertise depending on the choice of the ADR-provider. Additionally, progressive ADR providers are technologically savvy and far more capable of providing remote, virtual, and digital services which better suit a nascent industry like cannabis. Of course the final decision always rests with the business, but it’s clear that the days of throwing in standard forum selection clauses into contracts are not a good fit for the marijuana industry.

More New Era Insights

Learn About Alternative Dispute Resolution

Hear stories from inside the court system and learn more about how ADR mediation and technology is offering a new path for dispute resolution.

50 Years of Title IX: Where Do We Go From Here? 

50 Years of Title IX: Where Do We Go From Here? 

If you’re a Title IX Coordinator, you know two things for sure:  You are the point-person for federal compliance.  And, that compliance is always changing. When interviewing for my Title IX Coordinator role I was told over and over again that the position came with...

The Gig Economy Needs a New Era of Arbitration

The Gig Economy Needs a New Era of Arbitration

A decade ago, significant litigation concerning the classification of gig workers began to surface. Recently there’s been renewed debate about the role of arbitration in the “gig” economy. Just this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard a case on...

The Title IX Coordinator Resource Guide

The Title IX Coordinator Resource Guide

Recently we sent out a survey within our Title IX Newsletter, asking Coordinators to share a little about your role. In an effort to help create a community, we thought it'd be helpful to pass along some of the shared resources, as well as some of the challenges of...

ODR is a Tool for Consumers to Resolve Disputes Quickly

ODR is a Tool for Consumers to Resolve Disputes Quickly

In this article we discuss how Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) is an easier and more efficient way to solve consumer disputes. 80% of the Global Population Uses Smartphones In 2011, Pew Research Center’s first survey of smartphone ownership determined that 35% of...

Get Started

Get Instant Access To Rapid Dispute Resolution

Create your free New Era ADR account and accelerate the resolution of your disputes.

Create My Account