Dispute over the denial of marijuana licenses; Due process; Effect of a waivers in the applications; The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions; AFT MI v Michigan; Barden Detroit Casino, LLC v Detroit (ED MI); Town of Newton v Rumery; Whether the waivers violated public policy; Brooklyn Sav Bank v O’Neil; Cudnik v William Beaumont Hosp; Whether summary disposition is premature; Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v Bloomfield Hills Country Club; Enforceability of the waivers under the Michigan Regulation & Taxation of Marijuana Act (MRTMA) & city ordinances; Evaluation & scoring of applications under the MRTMA; MCL 333.27959(4); Yellow Tail Ventures, Inc v City of Berkley; General limitations on municipal powers; MCL 333.27956; Preemption; DeRuiter v Byron Twp; Applicability of the Open Meetings Act (OMA); Pinebrook Warren, LLC v City of Warren

The court held that the waivers in plaintiffs’ applications for licenses to sell marijuana in defendant-city were valid and enforceable. In addition, they failed to show they were entitled to relief on the ground that the city’s adopted criteria for evaluating applications conflicted with the MRTMA. Finally, the OMA did not apply. Plaintiffs (and intervening plaintiffs) sued defendants after their applications for licenses to sell marijuana in the city were denied. The trial court found the city and intervening defendants were entitled to summary disposition on the basis of waivers in the application forms. It also ruled that the OMA was not violated and that the city’s ordinance did not conflict with the MRTMA. On appeal, the court first agreed with the trial court that the waivers were valid and enforceable. Even on appeal, plaintiffs “have not offered any factual reasons why the waivers would not be enforceable.” As such, the court was “not persuaded that summary disposition on the basis of the waiver provisions was either inappropriate or premature.” In addition, they did not show “that any provision of the MRTMA clearly prohibits the waivers adopted by the” city. The court next rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the city was not permitted to adopt criteria for evaluating an applicant’s suitability to operate a marijuana business within the community that were not directly relevant to the applicant’s suitability to operate a business in compliance with the MRTMA. “There is nothing in the language of MCL 333.27956 or MCL 333.27959(4) that suggests that the state intended to restrict the criteria a municipality can consider when evaluating competing licensing applications, other than those limitations specifically prescribed in MCL 333.27956. Thus, a municipality may consider criteria unique to its own community and citizens, subject to the restrictions in MCL 333.27959(4).” Finally, the court found that because the city’s selection committee “was not operating as a public body, it was not required to comply with the OMA.” And plaintiffs failed “to establish an independent claim for breach of contract.” Affirmed.