Raven's Landing, LLC v. New York State Cannabis Control Board
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-01581
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Raven’s Landing v. New York State Cannabis Control Board, Judge Vyskocil dismissed the action without prejudice because petitioners filed a petition instead of a complaint.
The dismissal affected Raven’s Landing, LLC and the other hemp product makers, distributors, and sellers who filed the action; the order also ended the federal case against the named New York defendants without reaching the merits.
What happened
Raven’s Landing, LLC and other hemp businesses challenged New York cannabis regulations, arguing that the rules would make many of their products illegal and violated federal constitutional rights. They filed a document called a “Verified Petition” in federal court and later sought an emergency court order stopping enforcement.
The court noted that petitioners had not filed proof that they served the defendants with either the case papers or the emergency-motion papers. The court also questioned whether the dispute belonged in state court, but it did not decide that issue.
The court ruled that a federal case must begin with a complaint, not a petition, and therefore the action had not been properly started. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Raven's Landing, LLC v. New York State Cannabis Control Board · No. 1:24-cv-01581
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 11, 2024
Background
Raven’s Landing, LLC, doing business as Dr. Nature RX, and other petitioners described in the order as hemp product makers, distributors, and sellers filed a document titled “Verified Petition” in federal court. They primarily alleged that new New York State cannabis regulations, adopted in November 2023, would make many of their products illegal and violated their federal constitutional rights. Five days after filing the petition, they filed an emergency motion seeking a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order intended to prevent action while a case proceeds.
The petition relied in part on a prior New York State court case involving similar emergency regulations. The federal court also noted that the petition asserted jurisdiction under New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules, including provisions governing Article 78 proceedings and declaratory judgments. The court said these allegations raised concerns that the action might fundamentally be a state-court proceeding improperly presented as a federal constitutional case.
Court’s Analysis
The court did not resolve those concerns. Instead, it held that the action had not been properly commenced in federal court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 provides that an action begins with the filing of a complaint, and Rule 7 identifies the pleadings allowed in federal court. The court explained that this case was not one of the limited types of matters that may be started by petition, such as certain petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or petitions to confirm and enforce final arbitration awards.
The court also observed that petitioners had filed no proof of service for either the petition or the preliminary-injunction motion. The order states that a court cannot grant preliminary injunctive relief before a complaint is properly filed. Because petitioners filed a petition instead of a complaint, the court concluded that they never properly initiated the federal action.
Disposition
The action was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court directed the clerk to close the case. The order did not decide whether the challenged regulations were constitutional, whether the dispute belonged in federal or state court, or whether petitioners were entitled to a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.