Kanna Knowledge 

Your Source For News and Commentary on Cannabis
for the Insurance Industry

Subscribe to our Newsletter Updates

Just a tip …

A federal class action lawsuit recently filed in federal court in Arizona shows the dangers that loose frameworks pose to tipping practices to a company’s legal liability. In this instance, the plaintiff employee claims that Jars Cannabis, (a subsidiary of Dreem Green Inc.), violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by not paying employees the full value of their tips. She also claims that Jars Cannabis enabled managers and supervisors to join in the tip pool illegally, collecting a share of gratuities that should have gone to non-management staff.

Plaintiff wants unpaid tips, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and interest for a class of current and past tipped employees employed by Jars Cannabis and its connected firms in the last three years, excluding managers, supervisors, and owners.

Tuck v. Dreem Green, Inc.

South Dakota Supreme Court goes against the will of the people …

I reported on this case before. In November 2020, South Dakota voters approved Amendment A, which legalized the adult use of marijuana. In response, state officials initiated a lawsuit arguing that Amendment A violates the South Dakota Constitution’s single‐subject rule, which restricts amendments to being about only a single subject. A South Dakota circuit judge agreed, striking down the amendment. The circuit court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on February 8, 2021.

At the time, I thought this would be a fruitless attempt to overturn the will of South Dakota voters. Well, I was wrong. The court found that, “It is clear that Amendment A contains provisions embracing at least three separate subjects, each with distinct objects or purposes.”  The court found that recreational marijuana, medical marijuana and hemp were three separate issues, therefore the Amendment violated the South Dakota Constitution as constitutional amendments can only address a single issue.

I’m not so sure about that. However, it is back to the drawing board for South Dakota voters.

Thom, et al. v. Barnett , et al, 2021 SD Appeal No. 29546

And the hits just keep on coming …

I previously reported on Curaleaf’s labeling problems.  Now they face yet another lawsuit from a customer claiming he needed medical treatment after taking CBD drops that really contained THC. This is the seventh lawsuit filed so far. Plaintiff, Ayuba Agbonkhese filed a lawsuit on Nov. 19 alleging that he needed “urgent medical treatment in the emergency room, and suffered harm including the belief that he was going to die, shaking, racing heart, psychosis, discomfort, and anxiety, and interference with living activities.”

The lawsuits are making claims for approximately 1% of Curaleaf’s net worth.  This is another important example of the need for proper insurance.


What’s a lawyer’s favorite drink?

A subpoena colada.

Jason Morgan Roberts is an Attorney and Legal Commentator in the Chicagoland Area.  He can be reached at [email protected].  His commentary is not to be considered legal advice.