Case No.

A24-______
State of Minnesota
In Court of Appeals

IN RE CALM WATERS CANNABIS CO., WECAN CULTIVATION INC.,

KIND BUD, INC. KING KIND INC., MN GROWN CORP., ELM WOODS
FARM, TOP SHELF TERPS CANNABIS COMPANY,

Petitioners,

Cristina Aranguiz and Jodi Connolly, Green Leaf MN LLC, Wild

Domain, LLC, and Hendo Industries LLC, Northern Illusion LLC,
Milstagrams LLC, Better Bud Co LLC, Thrifties LLC et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management, Charlene Briner,

Defendants.

On Petition for a Writ of Prohibition to the Ramsey County District Court

Second Judicial District
Case Nos. 62-CV-24-7403, 62-CV-24-7412,
62-CV-24-7413, 62-CV-24-7411
The Honorable Stephen L. Smith

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION

ON THE RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT’S NOVEMBER 25
ORDER STAYING THE OFFICE OF CANNABIS MANAGEMENT’S
LICENSE PREAPPROVAL LOTTERY

FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.

Alethea M. Huyser (#0389270)
Shantal M. Pai (#0402781)
60 South Sixth Street
Suite 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4400

(612) 492-7000
Attorneys for Petitioners
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ ii

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 2

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ....................................................................... 11

STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................. 11

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 12

I. THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER ISSUING A STAY WAS

AN EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER. ............................................... 13

II. THE DISTRICT COURT ACTED WITHOUT

JURISDICTION WHEN IT ISSUED A STAY OF THE
PREAPPROVAL LOTTERY. ................................................................... 13

III. PETITIONERS HAVE NO OTHER REMEDY. ..................................... 16

IV. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT THE WRIT OUTRIGHT,

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ORDER FULL BREIFING
AND ARGUMENT. .................................................................................. 17

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 18

i
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Anderson v. City of Lyon,

784 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. App. 2010) ................................................................. 14

Anzures v. Ward,
890 N.W.2d 127 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017) ......................................................... 14

Bellows v. Ericson,
46 N.W.2d 654 (Minn. 1951) .................................................................... 13, 18

Carlson v. Chermak,
639 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. App. 2002) ............................................................... 13

Clark v. Clark,
543 N.W.2d 685 (Minn. App. 1996) ............................................................... 18

Dead Lake Ass’n v. Otter Tail County,

695 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 2005) ........................................................................ 14

Dokmo v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 11, Anoka–Hennepin,

459 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1990) .......................................................................... 8

Humphrey v. Shumaker,
524 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. App. 1994) ............................................................... 17

In re Jensen Field Relocation Claims Jensen Field, Inc.,

817 N.W.2d 724 (Minn. App. 2012) ......................................................... 14, 15

In Re Program to Aid Victims of Sexual Assault,

943 N.W.2d 673 (Minn. App. 2020) ......................................................... 12, 16

In re Truscott,
2015 WL 13855281 (Minn. App. Nov. 25, 2015) ........................................... 18

Klapmeier v. Cirrus Indus, Inc.,

900 N.W.2d 386 (Minn. 2017) .................................................................. 11, 13

ii
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Lam v. City of Saint Paul,

714 N.W.2d 740 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) ......................................................... 14

Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher,

392 N.W.2d 197 (Minn.1986) ............................................................. 12, 13, 15

Neitzel v. County of Redwood,

521 N.W.2d 73 (Minn. App.1994) .................................................................. 13

Smith v. Tuman,
114 N.W.2d 73 (Minn. 1962) .......................................................................... 17

State v. Hart,
723 N.W.2d 254 .............................................................................................. 12

Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights,

818 N.W.2d 533 (Minn. 2012) ........................................................................ 14

Williams v. Smith,
820 N.W.2d 807 (Minn. 2012) ........................................................................ 14

Zweber v. Credit River Twp.,

882 N.W.2d 605 (Minn. 2016) ........................................................................ 13

Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 342.09 (2023) ........................................................................................... 2

2024 Minn. L. ch. 121, art. 2, § 148 .................................................................... passim

iii
 The Petitioners Calm Waters Cannabis Co., WeCan Cultivation Inc.,

Kind Bud, Inc., King Kind Inc., MN Grown Corp., Elm Woods Farm, and Top

Shelf Terps Cannabis Company request a writ of prohibition restraining the

Ramsey County District Court from enforcing its order of November 25, 2024.

INTRODUCTION

On November 25, 2024, Ramsey County District Court Judge Stephen L.

Smith heard a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order seeking to stop the

Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) from running a licensing

preapproval lottery set to take place the following day. See Pet. Addendum

(Add.) at 001–003. The district court expressly recognized its lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. Not only was the preapproval lottery, by law, non-

appealable; but to the extent reviewable, the case clearly sought review of a

quasi-judicial agency action reviewable only at the Minnesota Court of

Appeals. Judge Smith nonetheless issued an indefinite stay to prohibit OCM

running the preapproval lottery. See id. at 003.

Petitioners were among the 648 applicants who were accepted into the

lottery that should have been run on November 26, 2024. Because the district

court plainly lacked jurisdiction, Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition lifting

the district court’s stay in Aranguiz & Connolly v. Minnesota Office of

Cannabis Management & Charlene Briner, Case No. 62-CV-24-7403 (Nov. 25,

2024), Green Leaf MN LLC v. Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management &

1
Charlene Briner, Case No. 62-CV-24-7412 (Nov. 25, 2024) (Add. 001–003), Wild

Domain, LLC v. Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management & Charlene Briner,

Case No. 62-CV-24-7413 (Nov. 25, 2024), and Hendo Industries LLC, Northern

Illusion LLC, Milstagrams LLC, Better Bud Co. LLC, Thrifties LLC et. al. v.

Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management & Charlene Briner, Case No. 62-

CV-24-7411 (Nov. 25, 2024).

The license preapproval process is a one-time mechanism created by the

legislature to address urgent, time-sensitive challenges critical to standing up

Minnesota’s cannabis market. By providing operationally ready social equity

applicants with early confirmation of their qualifications, the preapproval

process helps applicants secure property, financing, and local government

approvals necessary to launch their businesses. This process ensures equity,

timely market readiness, and compliance with legislative intent.

BACKGROUND

I. The Minnesota Legislature Creates a Pre-Approval Licensing

Process.

In 2023, the Minnesota Legislature legalized adult-use cannabis and

implemented a cannabis business licensing and regulatory regime. Minn. Stat.

§ 342.09 (2023). The cannabis licensing regulatory scheme is tiered in

numerous ways, providing for different types of applicants, different types of

licenses, and different schedules for licensing approvals. During the 2024

2
Legislative Session, the Legislature amended the cannabis regulatory regime.

Relevant to this action, the Legislature added a one-time process for

social equity verified applicants to seek license preapproval prior to adoption

of the initial rules and the commencement of full licensing. 2024 Minn. L. 121,

art. 2, § 148, subds. 1–2 (May 24, 2024). Under the statute, OCM could accept

applications for license preapproval from verified social equity applicants

between July 24, 2024 and August 12, 2024. Id., subd. 3. The number of

licenses were limited to 282, with a pre-set number of licenses by license

category type. Id. subd. 1(b). If OCM elected to accept applications for license

preapproval and the number of applications exceeded the number of

preapprovals authorized, the statute required that OCM “must conduct a

lottery to select applicants for license preapproval.” Id., subd. 6.

When explaining the purposes of the preapproval process, the

Legislature and OCM focused on two primary aspects: (1) preapproval would

help “expedite the process of setting up a good legitimate marketplace for

cannabis to displace the illicit marketplace that’s out there” by allowing early

cultivation, and (2) it would allow historically disadvantaged populations to

“line up capital, secure real estate, do all of those things knowing that they

will have a license down the road which will effectuate a faster startup once

those licenses are actually issued.” See Comments of Rep. Zack Stephenson

(Author), House Debate on H.F. 4757 (Apr. 14, 2024). The legislature explicitly

3
tied preapproval to helping applicants secure local government zoning and

planning approvals, recognizing the competitive and capped nature of many

local jurisdictions. See, e.g., 2024 Minn. L. 121, art. 2, § 148, subd. 8 (May 24,

2024). For example, towns like Breckenridge award local permits on a first-

come, first-served basis, where preapproval status provides a decisive

advantage. This legislative intent aligns with the broader goals of prioritizing

operational readiness and enabling social equity applicants to overcome

systemic barriers.

Interim Director of OCM, Charlene Briner, also explained the bill

contained detailed criteria by which applications for license preapproval would

be vetted and either denied or accepted. Comments of Charlene Briner, House

Hearing on H.F. 4757 (Mar. 22, 2024).1 These application requirements and

criteria for preapproval application review are enacted at 2024 Minn. L. 121,

art. 2, § 148, subd. 4 and 5 (May 24, 2024). The legislation provides that this

process for licensing preapproval is a one-time process to take place before the

adoption of initial rules. Id., subd. 1. The legislation also provides the

requirements and process by which license preapproval can be converted to a

license following the adoption of OCM’s initial rules. Id., subd. 10. Elsewhere

1 Ms. Briner’s presentation slides and an OCM handout are available at

https://www.house.mn.gov/comm/docs/0UqCyJx75kWAFn1oqNEq4Q.pdf.

4
Chapter 342 provides requirements for the issuance of regular licensing after

the adoption of rules. See Minn. Stat. § 342.14.

Consistent with the Legislature’s focus on efficiency for the preapproval

lottery, the statute required that OCM notify an applicant of denial, but it did

not require that OCM provide an opportunity to cure deficiencies in the

application contents. 2024 Minn. L. 121, art. 2, § 148, subd. 5(c)–(e). The

statute also does not provide for judicial review of a denial decision. See

generally id.

II. OCM Permits and Reviews Applications for Pre-Approval.

In 2024, OCM promptly created an application process for license

preapprovals. During the application window, it received nearly 2,000

applications for just 282 available preapprovals.2 Id., subd. 1. As part of the

preapproval process, the Legislature required OCM to verify an applicant’s

status as a social equity applicant and gave OCM discretion to deny an

application in several circumstances, including if the application was

incomplete or if the applicant did not meet statutory requirements. Id., subds.

2 & 5.

As required by the statute, OCM reviewed the applications. At least

2 See Applicants sue Minnesota’s Office of Cannabis Management over disqualification,

MPR News (Nov. 22, 2024).

5
some applicants who were denied received notice by November 18, 2024. See

generally Aranguiz & Connolly v. Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management,

Complaint, Case No. 62-CV-24-7403 (Nov. 21, 2024), at ¶ 2. Petitioners were

among the applicants who received letters indicating that they were found to

be qualified and eligible for the preapproval lottery. Their approvals were not

received until November 22, 2024. Following its review, OCM determined that

648 applicants had proven their qualification to participate in the pool. OCM

planned to hold a lottery on November 26, 2024.3

III. Denied Applicants Bring Case to Stop the Lottery From

Occurring.

Just five days before the lottery was scheduled to take place, on

November 21, 2024, Cristina Aranguiz and Jodi Connolly sued OCM in

Ramsey County District Court4 alleging that their applications were

improperly denied by OCM. See generally Aranguiz & Connolly v. Minnesota

Office of Cannabis Management, Complaint, Case No. 62-CV-24-7403 (Nov. 21,

3 See Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management Sets Date for Cannabis License
Preapproval Selection Lottery, OCM https://mn.gov/ocm/media/news-releases/?id=1202-
655136#:~:text=%E2%80%94%20On%20Tuesday%2C%20November%2026%2C,in%2
0Minnesota%20Statutes%2C%20Chapter%20342..

4 When Plaintiffs filed in district court, a different Ramsey County judge had already
correctly ruled that district courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider challenges
to an OCM denial. See King v. Minn. Office of Cannabis Mgmt., Case No. 62-CV-24-4867,
Docket No. 40 at 12–13 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Sept. 23, 2024) (J. Aligada).

6
2024). Aranguiz and Connolly alleged that on November 18, 2024, OCM denied

Cristina Aranguiz’s and Jodi Connolly’s applications. Id. ¶ 2.

On November 22, Aranguiz and Connolly moved for a Temporary

Injunction or a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), seeking to prevent OCM

from holding the preapproval lottery until the matter was resolved. Aranguiz

& Connolly v. Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management, Plaintiffs’ Notice of

Motion and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Temporary

Injunction, Case No. 62-CV-24-7403 (Nov. 22, 2024).5

That same day, OCM moved to dismiss the case because the district court

lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Aranguiz & Connolly v. Minnesota Office of

Cannabis Management, Motion to Dismiss, Case No. 62-CV-24-7403 (Nov. 22,

5 The district court combined Cristina Aranguiz and Jodi Connolly’s lawsuits with
additional plaintiffs, who subsequently filed separate lawsuits with similar claims and
joined in the motion for a temporary injunction. See Add. at 002 (District Court Order ¶ 1);
see also Green Leaf MN LLC v. Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management & Charlene
Briner, Complaint and Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction, Case No. 62-CV-24-7412 (Nov. 22, 2024); Wild Domain, LLC v.
Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management & Charlene Briner, Complaint and Emergency
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Case No. 62-CV-24-
7413 (Nov. 24, 2024); Hendo Industries LLC, Northern Illusion LLC, Milstagrams LLC,
Better Bud Co. LLC, Thrifties LLC et. al. v. Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management &
Charlene Briner, Complaint, Case No. 62-CV-24-7411 (Nov. 22, 2024) (requesting
temporary injunction as Count II); Hendo Industries LLC, Northern Illusion LLC,
Milstagrams LLC, Better Bud Co. LLC, Thrifties LLC et. al. v. Minnesota Office of
Cannabis Management & Charlene Briner, Notice of Motion and Motion for TRO, Case
No. 62-CV-24-7411 (Nov. 22, 2024).

7
2024).6 OCM explained that the district court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction to review OCM’s decision because the decision was a quasi-judicial

decision that needed to be raised through certiorari review in the Court of

Appeals. Add. at 004–009 (Aranguiz & Connolly v. Minnesota Office of

Cannabis Management, Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss, Case No. 62-CV-24-7403 (Nov. 22, 2024)).7

The district court set a hearing on the motions for a TRO and motions to

dismiss for November 25, 2024—the eve of the lottery planned for November

26. Shortly after the hearing, the district court issued an order: (1) finding that

the plaintiffs needed to file a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to seek

review because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction,8 but

6 See also Green Leaf MN LLC v. Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management & Charlene
Briner, Motion to Dismiss, Case No. 62-CV-24-7412 (Nov. 24, 2024); Hendo Industries
LLC, Northern Illusion LLC, Milstagrams LLC, Better Bud Co. LLC, Thrifties LLC et. al.
v. Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management & Charlene Briner, Motion to Dismiss, Case
No. 62-CV-24-7411 (Nov. 24, 2024).

7 OCM also argued that the legal factors did not weigh in favor of a TRO. Indeed, OCM
argued that the stay would prevent OCM from running the lottery and would negatively
impact other participants. Petitioners agree—the stay has prevented OCM from issuing
any and all license preapprovals, contrary to explicit legal requirements to do so.

8 A decision that a writ of certiorari is the proper path for judicial review is necessarily a
decision that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See e.g., Dokmo v.
Independent Sch. Dist. No. 11, Anoka–Hennepin, 459 N.W.2d 671, 677–78 (Minn. 1990)
(when writ of certiorari was only way to obtain review, district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to decide declaratory judgment action).

8
nonetheless (2) ordering OCM to stay the preapproval lottery pending a

decision from the Court of Appeals. Add. at 001–003.

IV. The Stay Adversely Affects Minnesota and Petitioners.

Petitioners are each businesses in Minnesota with ownership that were

among the 648 applicants that were granted social equity status and

determined by OCM to have demonstrated their right to participate in the

preapproval lottery.

Petitioners expended significant money and time to develop their

applications, ensure compliance with the statute, and to prepare their

businesses. As social equity business owners, Petitioners face substantial

barriers in accessing capital, land, and local permitting approvals—challenges

that the legislature specifically sought to mitigate through the preapproval

process. The indefinite delay in holding the preapproval lottery further

deepens the inequities that the Legislature intended to address with the

preapproval process.

The stay also exacerbates barriers to local government approvals. Local

government approvals are a critical step in the cannabis licensing process, as

nearly every jurisdiction in Minnesota imposes caps or restrictions on the

number of businesses it will permit. Many jurisdictions also use a first-come,

first-served approach for these permits. License preapproval provides

petitioners with an opportunity to secure these limited local approvals by

9
demonstrating readiness and compliance, which aligns with statutory intent

to prioritize operationally ready applicants. Delaying the lottery increases the

risk that less-qualified or non-equity-focused businesses will occupy these

limited slots.

The lack of clarity and delay affects position in the market because

applicants are unable to act on opportunities that require definitive licensing.

One petitioner shared that “delay of the lottery has dismissed the countless

hours over the past year and a half I’ve put in to this project. Not to mention

the work we’ve completed working with county and city officials, lobbying, and

money invested has significantly impacted my life.” Another Petitioner has had

multiple property deals fall through, and lost escrow money due to ever-

changing timelines. Yet another Petitioner has had staffing, construction

project crews, and city permits that were all timed to the lottery fall apart. All

are now in perpetual limbo. These financial and logistical hurdles have

disrupted timelines for hiring, facility preparation, and scaling efforts.

In addition, the Legislature recognized that the legalization of cannabis

without a licensed marketplace created societal concerns, including specifically

the inevitable expansion of illicit markets that carry an array of potential social

harms. As such, the stay also disrupts the legislature’s goal of reducing

reliance on illicit markets by delaying early cultivation, which is critical to

ensuring a functioning supply chain when retail licenses are issued. Without

10
timely preapproval, the gap between legalization and market availability

widens, creating opportunities for unregulated actors to dominate consumer

access, undermining public safety, economic equity, and undermining public

confidence in the program.

Moreover, by disrupting the lottery, the district court significantly

changed the status quo. In favor of just a handful of denied applicants, the

stay disrupted Minnesota policy as set by the Legislature, and prevented OCM

from running a lottery that hundreds of Minnesota businesses with

disadvantaged owners earnestly invested in. The cure was certainly worse

than the alleged disease (a disease which, notably, remains unproven). See

Eric Taubel Decl., Add. at 044–103.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Should this Court issue a writ of prohibition reversing the district

court’s order issuing a stay because the district court acted without subject

matter jurisdiction?

In the alternative, should the Court order full briefing on the writ?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy. Writs of prohibition are

an important tool “to oversee the actions of lower courts in the rare instances

in which a court . . . exercises judicial power that is unauthorized by law.”

Klapmeier v. Cirrus Indus, Inc., 900 N.W.2d 386, 392 (Minn. 2017). A writ of

11
prohibition is an important check on the improper exercise of judicial power

and is warranted to prevent a district court from violating the doctrine of

separation of powers. See State v. Hart, 723 N.W.2d 254, 261 n. 13 (Minn. 2006)

(discussing the use of writs to avoid separation of powers problems).

To obtain a writ of prohibition, a petitioner must show three things: “(1)

an inferior court or tribunal must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial

power; (2) the exercise of such power must be unauthorized by law; and (3) the

exercise of such power must result in injury for which there is no adequate

remedy.” Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d 197, 208

(Minn.1986) (quotation omitted). A writ of prohibition is available “to those

cases where the lower court has exceeded its jurisdiction and no other adequate

remedy exists.” Id.

ARGUMENT

The district court exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued a ruling that:

(1) issued an order related to a quasi-judicial agency action; and (2) ignored the

legal mandate that no judicial review was permitted as to this particular

agency decision. Immediate review by writ of prohibition is required because

Petitioners were not parties to the district court action and cannot appeal. See

In Re Program to Aid Victims of Sexual Assault, 943 N.W.2d 673, 676 (Minn.

App. 2020) (“PAVSA, a nonparty to the [district court] proceeding, does not

have an ordinary remedy by appeal.”). Because the district court clearly erred

12
by issuing a stay without subject matter jurisdiction, this Court should issue a

peremptory writ of prohibition. See Minn. R. App. P. 121.02(a).

I. THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER ISSUING A STAY WAS AN

EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER.

The district court’s November 25, 2024 Order issuing a stay was an

exercise of judicial power. Bellows v. Ericson, 46 N.W.2d 654, 658 (Minn. 1951)

(issuing a writ of prohibition to prevent a court from enforcing its order); see

Klapmeier, 900 N.W.2d at 393 (concluding that order is an exercise of judicial

power). Accordingly, the first requirement for a writ of prohibition is satisfied.

Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., 392 N.W.2d at 208 (requiring that an inferior

court be about to exercise judicial power for a writ of prohibition to issue).

II. THE DISTRICT COURT ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION

WHEN IT ISSUED A STAY OF THE PREAPPROVAL LOTTERY.

The district court acted without subject matter jurisdiction, and so its

stay was unauthorized by law. “Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s

authority to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular

questions presented to the court for its decision.” Zweber v. Credit River Twp.,

882 N.W.2d 605, 608 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). If a district court does

not have subject matter jurisdiction over a particular action, that action is void.

Carlson v. Chermak, 639 N.W.2d 886, 889 (Minn. App. 2002); Neitzel v. County

of Redwood, 521 N.W.2d 73, 76 (Minn. App. 1994) (vacating district court

judgment because appellant failed to timely obtain a writ, which was only

13
available method to obtain judicial review), review denied (Minn. Oct. 27,

1994).

District courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review agency decisions

unless there is express statutory authority to the contrary. See Williams v.

Smith, 820 N.W.2d 807, 813 (Minn. 2012); City of Washington v. City of Oak

Park Heights, 818 N.W.2d 533, 538 (Minn. 2012); Anzures v. Ward, 890 N.W.2d

127, 130 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017); Lam v. City of Saint Paul, 714 N.W.2d 740, 743

(Minn. Ct. App. 2006). This rule is grounded in considerations of separations

of power and agency deference.9 Id. When agencies act in their quasi-judicial

capacity, courts afford deference to the agency’s process “to avoid usurpation

of the executive body’s administrative prerogatives.” Anderson v. City of Lyon,

784 N.W.2d 77, 81 (Minn. App. 2010). An agency decision is quasi-judicial

capacity if the decision involves: “(1) investigation into a disputed claim and

weighing evidentiary facts; (2) application of those facts to a prescribed

standard; and (3) a binding decision regarding the disputed claim.” In re Jensen

Field Relocation Claims Jensen Field, Inc., 817 N.W.2d 724, 728–28 (Minn.

9 The district court stated that it was “mindful of the separation of powers implications
here,” but did not cite to any legal authority providing jurisdiction to intrude on the
agency’s decision. A district court cannot circumvent lack of jurisdiction by
acknowledging that it lacks jurisdiction. Cf. Dead Lake Ass’n v. Otter Tail County, 695
N.W.2d 129, 134 (Minn. 2005) (“[L]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any
time by the parties or sua sponte by the court, and cannot be waived by the parties.”).

14
App. 2012) (citations omitted). As OCM detailed to the district court, that is

exactly what OCM did with applications for preapproval license. Aranguiz &

Connolly v. Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management, Memorandum of Law

- Motion to Dismiss at 4–5, Case No. 62-CV-24-7403 (Nov. 22, 2024). OCM

reviewed Plaintiffs’ application materials, concluded that their applications

failed to properly disclose ownership and control interests (as required by

statute), and then denied their applications because they failed to comply with

statutory requirements. See id.

OCM’s decisions denying applications for preapproval licenses were

quasi-judicial decisions and no statutory authority was identified by any party

or the court for review in the district court.

Furthermore, it is notable that there is no legal authority for judicial

review by any court. In establishing the preapproval process, the Legislature

expressly eliminated that right as it related to the preapproval application

process: “Any applicant whose application is denied or not selected in a lottery

may not appeal or request a hearing.” 2024 Minn. Law, sec. 148, Subd.

11(d) (emphasis added).

Either way, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to

consider challenges to OCM’s decisions. See King v. Minn. Office of Cannabis

Mgmt., Case No. 62-CV-24-4867, Docket No. 40 at 12–13 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Sept.

23, 2024) (J. Aligada). Accordingly, the district court lacked subject matter

15
jurisdiction to issue a stay, and Petitioners satisfy the second requirement for

a writ of prohibition. See Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., 392 N.W.2d at 208

(requiring that the inferior court’s exercise of power be unauthorized by law

for a writ of prohibition to issue).

III. PETITIONERS HAVE NO OTHER REMEDY.

Finally, as to the last requirement for a writ of prohibition—as non-

parties to the district court case, Petitioners do not have an ordinary remedy

by appeal. See In Re Program to Aid Victims of Sexual Assault, 943 N.W.2d at

676. Petitioners made significant investments of time and money to prepare

applications for preapproval on the promise that they would have an early

opportunity to secure preapproval status, which the Legislature enacted

specifically to provide advantages in the licensing process, including

positioning to secure local permits and to begin some operations sooner than

general applicants. Petitioners began to prepare their business to “expedite the

process of setting up a good, legitimate marketplace for cannabis to displace

the illicit marketplace.” See Comments of Rep. Zack Stephenson (Author),

House Debate on H.F. 4757 (Apr. 14, 2024). As legislators recognized, “a

temporary early license will give the opportunity for these license holders that

is critical in preparing their business; including securing capital and gaining

the local approvals that they need to operate where they choose.” Comments of

Charlene Briner, House Hearing on H.F. 4757 (Mar. 22, 2024).

16
 Instead, Petitioners have lost capital and opportunities to engage with

local governments because of uncertainties in the licensing process.

Petitioners invested in and relied on the acts of the Legislature and OCM

in creating a preapproval process. Continued delay in holding the preapproval

lottery delays development of a legal market for cannabis, delays realization of

their investments, and injects additional uncertainty in the process of securing

necessary capital and local approvals necessary for operation. Petitioners are

prepared to start their cannabis businesses and will suffer irremediable harm

if the preapproval lottery does not proceed as required. See State v. Turner,

550 0N.W.2d 622, 626 (Minn. 1996) (“[T]his court has issued a writ of

prohibition to correct an error of law in the lower court where no other

adequate remedy is available to the petitioner and enforcement of the trial

court’s order would result in irremediable harm”).

IV. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT THE WRIT OUTRIGHT, OR, IN

THE ALTERNATIVE, ORDER FULL BREIFING AND
ARGUMENT.

This case is not a close call. The district court recognized that it lacked

subject matter jurisdiction, but then—despite recognizing it lacked authority

to act—issued a stay. The district court clearly erred, and the court should

issue a preemptory writ and reverse the stay outright. Minn. R. App. P.

120.03(a); Smith v. Tuman, 114 N.W.2d 73, 77–78 (Minn. 1962) (issuing writ

of prohibition when justice of the peace issued an order without jurisdiction);

17
Humphrey v. Shumaker, 524 N.W.2d 303, 308 (Minn. App. 1994) (grating writ

of prohibition because district court did not have authority to appoint the

Attorney General to represent an indigent plaintiff); Clark v. Clark, 543

N.W.2d 685, 688 (Minn. App. 1996) (issuing emergency writ of prohibition

because district court abused its discretion in denying a stay pending

resolution of remaining custody issues); Bellows, 46 N.W.2d at 658 (“A writ of

prohibition . . . is used to prevent or restrain the usurpation by inferior

tribunals or by judicial officers of powers which they do not have and to compel

them to observe the limits of their jurisdiction.”).

In the alternative, if the Court has questions that warrant full briefing,

it should “grant temporary relief and direct the filing of briefs.” Rule 120.03(b);

see In re Truscott, 2015 WL 13855281, at *2 (Minn. App. Nov. 25, 2015)

(following this procedure).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant a peremptory writ

reversing the district court’s stay, which was issued without subject matter

jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the petitioner requests an order granting the petition

for a writ of prohibition and the issuance of the writ.

18
Dated: December 11, 2024

/s/ Alethea M. Huyser

By: ________________________________________
Alethea M. Huyser (#0389270)
Shantal M. Pai (#0402781)
Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.
60 South Sixth Street
Suite 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4400

(612) 492-7000
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS

19