Doe v. Alternative Medicine Maryland, LLC
168 A.3d 21
| Md. | 2017Background
- This MD declaratory judgment action challenges the Commission’s pre-approval/licensing process for medical cannabis growers under HG § 13-3306(a)(9)(i)1 and COMAR regulations.
- Eight growers, a trade association, and patients sought intervenor status after pre-approvals were issued to the top applicants.
- AMM challenged diversity considerations and sought to reconduct the pre-approval stage; the circuit court denied intervention and dismissed actions as moot.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part, granting intervention as of right to the Growers and remanding for further proceedings, including laches and potential judicial-review posture.
- The opinion explains statutory framework, regulatory steps, and procedural history leading to the remand order.
- The case was remanded to assess the issues raised in the motion to dismiss, including laches and the proper form of review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention as of right for Growers under 2-214(a)(2) and CJ 3-405(a)(1) | Growers have direct, protected interests and potential impairment. | AMM contends Growers lack the requisite interest or adequate representation. | Growers entitled to intervention as of right and party status under CJ 3-405(a)(1). |
| Intervention for Patients and Trade Association | Patients/Trade Association have interests in access to medical cannabis. | Interests too attenuated and generalized to warrant intervention. | No intervention as of right or under CJ 3-405(a)(1) for Patients or Trade Association; no abuse of discretion on denial of permissive intervention. |
| Independent basis under CJ § 3-405(a)(1) vs. Rule 2-214(a)(2) for Growers | CJ provides an independent basis to be made a party beyond 2-214(a)(2). | CJ 3-405(a)(1) aligns with 2-214(a)(2) analysis. | CJ § 3-405(a)(1) provides an independent basis; Growers qualify under both authorities. |
| Remand for laches and administrative mandamus considerations | Laches and review type (administrative mandamus or substantial-evidence judicial review) should be addressed. | Merits depend on circuit court’s analysis; laches may bar claims. | Remand to address laches and the appropriate form of review, with circuit court to resolve merits first. |
| Permissive intervention for Growers | Discretion should allow intervention given common issues and non-delaying impact. | Intervention could delay resolution. | Circuit court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention for Growers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duckworth v. Deane, 393 Md. 524 (Md. 2006) (intervention standards; Declaratory Judgments Act interplay discussed (overlaps and limitations))
- Washington Grove v. Maryland-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, 408 Md. 37 (Md. 2009) (four-part test for intervention as of right (timeliness, interest, impairment, representation))
- Liddy v. Lamone, 398 Md. 233 (Md. 2007) (laches and court's ability to address laches sua sponte)
- Canavan v. Md. State Bd. of Elections, 430 Md. 533 (Md. 2013) (discussion of declaratory judgments and related procedural posture)
- State v. Jett, 316 Md. 248 (Md. 1989) (collateral-order-like considerations for interlocutory rulings)