Last week, a closely-watched trial involving a Colorado cannabis cultivator sued by a neighbor ended with a jury finding in the cultivator’s favor
. In Reilly v. 6480 Pickney, LLC
, the Reillys complained that their property’s value had decreased due to odor emitted from the cultivator’s property (an unfortunate, if not new, problem in legal cannabis markets
) and increased crime in the area. Rather than file a state based standard nuisance claim, however, the Reillys filed claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).
RICO was originally enacted in the 1970s to give law enforcement another tool to fight organized crime. Civil RICO lawsuits provide remedies where plaintiffs allege they have been harmed by “racketeering activity,” which, arguably, includes cultivating marijuana (because it remains illegal to do so under federal law).
Last year, a ruling
from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the Reillys to take their civil RICO case to trial, though the court noted that they still had to prove that the cultivator’s activity caused their property value to be diminished. In a landmark victory for the cannabis cultivator, though, the jury found that the Reillys did not make those required nuisance related showings. The jury’s verdict comes after a federal district court in Oregon
refused to allow a civil RICO claim to proceed.
RICO suits are attractive to plaintiffs because, if they succeed, the plaintiffs can obtain treble damages and attorney fees. Perhaps that is why there appears to be a dedicated effort
to use RICO in cannabis-related litigation. Given the increased risks associated RICO litigation, coupled with the fact that more of these cases are likely to be filed in the future, cannabis companies should be prepared to vigorously defend against these claims.