Swamp Capital, LLC v. Shaw

Swamp Capital, LLC v. Shaw

Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants James Shaw and Arts District Patients' Collective, Inc., (ADPC) appeal from a judgment upon jury verdicts on multiple causes of action in favor of plaintiffs.¹ They contend that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdicts and that the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial based on flaws in the verdict forms. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

1. James Shaw and ADPC

In the early 2000s, Shaw began cultivating cannabis. In approximately 2005, he started ADPC,² a cannabis dispensary in Los Angeles. ADPC held a registration certificate that allowed it to operate with limited immunity from prosecution under then-existing laws governing the cultivation and sale of cannabis in the city of Los Angeles (the Immunity Certificate).

Over the years, Shaw entered into various business arrangements with others involved in the cultivation [*2]  of marijuana. He allowed marijuana cultivators to use ADPC's Immunity Certificate to operate and dispense cannabis in Los Angeles in exchange for a percentage of the cultivators' crop. Shaw's deal-making methods varied; and he often used oral agreements that he would later memorialize in writing.

2. Sergio Tellez

Sergio Tellez was a licensed general contractor. He began his construction career building homes and, beginning in 2010, focused on the construction of facilities for the cultivation and sale of cannabis. He was also an entrepreneur. In 2014, Tellez invented "Spliffin," a "vaporizing product" cartridge for the consumption of cannabinoids extracted from cannabis plants.³ Tellez then formed plaintiff Polo Capital and Consulting, LP, as a vehicle for capital infusion into projects like Spliffin. In January 2015, Nikola Andrejich began working with Tellez to develop Spliffin and other related businesses.

B. Shaw's and Tellez's Business Relationship

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.