606 F.Supp.3d 624
E.D. Mich.2022Background
- Plaintiff Attitude Wellness, LLC (d/b/a Lume), a multi-site Michigan cannabis retailer, applied for the Village of Pinckney’s single provisional retail cannabis license and lost under the Village’s 85‑point ranking Matrix.
- The Matrix awarded 15 points for local residency (10 points for Village residents; 5 points for Livingston County residents) and additional points for green/renewable practices and revitalizing distressed commercial buildings.
- The Means Project received a perfect score and was awarded the Village’s provisional license; Lume challenged the Matrix as violating the dormant Commerce Clause, the Michigan Constitution (equal protection), and the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA).
- Lume moved for a preliminary injunction; The Means Project intervened and moved to dismiss.
- The Court found Lume likely to succeed on the dormant Commerce Clause and Michigan constitutional claims but denied a preliminary injunction because Lume failed to show irreparable harm and the balance of equities and public interest weighed against injunctive relief.
- The Court granted The Means Project’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding Lume’s MRTMA claim implausible and, given the Ordinance’s severability clause and Lume’s insufficient lawful points, that Lume failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant/Intervenor's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dormant Commerce Clause — residency preference | Matrix unlawfully discriminates against nonresidents by allocating 15/85 points to owner residency, disadvantaging out‑of‑area competitors | Residency is non‑durational and should be treated differently; Matrix serves local interests | Court: Residency preference likely violates dormant Commerce Clause; Lume likely to succeed on the merits |
| Michigan Constitution — equal protection / economic protectionism | Residency points constitute impermissible economic protectionism denying fair, nondiscriminatory consideration | Residency points promote local familiarity/community interests | Court: Residency preference likely fails rational‑basis review under Michigan law; Lume likely to succeed |
| MRTMA — municipal authority and preemption | Matrix awards points unrelated to MRTMA compliance (environmental practices, building revitalization) and thus conflicts with state scheme | MRTMA grants municipalities broad discretion to choose criteria for who is “best suited” | Court: MRTMA does not plainly restrict such factors; Lume is unlikely to succeed on MRTMA claim (claim implausible) |
| Preliminary injunction / irreparable harm & Motion to Dismiss | Lume: constitutional violations warrant injunctive relief to prevent irreparable injury (loss of license opportunity) | Village/Means: Lume sued after denial; even without residency points Lume lacked enough lawful points; severability mitigates relief; intervenor has reliance interests | Court: Denied PI—Lume failed to show irreparable harm; granted dismissal—Lume failed to state a viable claim because MRTMA claim is deficient and severability leaves Lume without relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Enchant Christmas Light Maze & Market Ltd. v. Glowco, LLC, 958 F.3d 532 (6th Cir.) (standards for preliminary injunction)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (U.S.) (weight of preliminary relief factors)
- Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (U.S.) (dormant Commerce Clause and protectionism)
- Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 (U.S.) (purpose of dormant Commerce Clause)
- Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon, 511 U.S. 93 (U.S.) (facially discriminatory laws nearly per se invalid)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (U.S.) (Pike balancing test for nondiscriminatory burdens)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S.) (Article III standing requirements)
- Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 495 Mich. 1 (Mich.) (state preemption and direct conflict standard)