Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Brief Fact Summary.
Defendants cultivate marijuana. Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant’s cultivation of marijuana has cause them harm.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
One may seek a remedy in violation o 18 U.S.C. § 1962 if one can prove factual support for their injuries.
In determining whether to sever claims, courts consider (1) whether the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence; (2) whether the claims present some common questions of law or fact; (3) whether settlement of the claims or judicial economy would be facilitated; (4) whether prejudice would be avoided if severance were granted; and (5) whether different witnesses and documentary proof are required for the separate claims.
View Full Point of Law
Defendant, Alternative Holistic Hearing LLC, doing business as Rocky Mountain Organic, operates a recreational marijuana cultivation facility and retail shop. Joseph R. Licata, Defendant, and Jason M. Licata, Defendant, each have fifty percent interest in Alternative Holistic Hearing, LLC. Parker Walton, Defendant, is the sole member, manager, and owner of Defendant, 6480 Pickney, LLC, which is the owner of the marijuana cultivation at 648 Pickney Road. All Defendants, together, are an enterprise for the purpose of marijuana cultivation, and all Defendant’s make decisions collectively. Plaintiffs, Philly Windy Hope Reily and Michael P. Reilly own property adjacent to 6480 Pickney Road. Plaintiffs allege that the marijuana cultivate has create an extremely odorous and noisy environment. Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that the marijuana cultivation has decrease their property’s value and decreased their enjoyment of their property. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants, collectively, have violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) because their activities have proximately cause them damage.
Issue.
Whether the Defendant’s cultivation of marijuana has cause the Plaintiff harm