Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five
January 21, 2022, Opinion Filed
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.
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.
2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 379 *; 2022 WL 190337
SWAMP CAPITAL, LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES SHAW et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Notice: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS. CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.1115(a), PROHIBITS COURTS AND PARTIES FROM CITING OR RELYING ON OPINIONS NOT CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OR ORDERED PUBLISHED, EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED BY RULE 8.1115(b). THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OR ORDERED PUBLISHED FOR THE PURPOSES OF RULE 8.1115.
Prior History: [*1] APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC641097, Gregory W. Alarcon, Judge.
site, verdict form, oral agreement, trial court, defendants', cause of action, cannabis, parties, terms, Certificate, Immunity, damages, sufficient evidence, cultivation, motion for a new trial, constructive fraud, punitive damages, misrepresentations, fiduciary, ownership, promised, amend, sufficiency of evidence, specific performance, venture, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, dispensary, renovation, rescission