In Great Barrington, Massachusetts, a legal dispute involving three marijuana dispensaries and the town over Host Community Agreements (HCAs) is intensifying. The Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) has filed a motion to intervene in this ongoing case.
The controversy began in March 2024, when Theory Wellness, Community Growth Partners (owner of Rebelle Dispensary), and Farnsworth Fine Cannabis initiated lawsuits against Great Barrington in Middlesex Superior Court. These dispensaries contend that the town should return millions of dollars they paid through their HCAs.
Theory Wellness, located at 394 Stockbridge Road, entered into its HCA on October 17, 2016, with a subsequent agreement on June 18, 2018. Community Growth Partners signed its HCA on March 20, 2019, for Rebelle Dispensary at 783 South Main Street, while Farnsworth Fine Cannabis established its HCA in August 2019 at 126 Main Street.
The CCC’s intervention stems from concerns that Great Barrington has challenged the Commission’s authority to regulate HCAs. The Commission claims that the town’s actions could undermine its ability to enforce cannabis laws, particularly Chapter 180 of the Acts of 2022, which grants the CCC oversight of HCAs and Community Impact Fees.
Special Assistant Attorney General Kajal Chattopadhyay, representing the CCC, outlined several reasons for the Commission’s intervention. According to her, the absence of the CCC in these proceedings could impede its ability to protect its statutory interests. The Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure allow for intervention when a party’s interest could be impaired by the outcome of a case.
Chattopadhyay argues that Great Barrington’s claims against the HCAs are fundamentally flawed. The town asserts that the HCAs do not require approval by the CCC under G.L. c. 94G, which Chattopadhyay argues reflects a misunderstanding of the Commission’s regulatory authority. The CCC intends to participate as a Third Party Plaintiff to ensure its authority is upheld in court.
In response, Town Counsel David Doneski filed an opposition to the CCC’s motion, arguing that the lawsuits center on private contractual disputes between the dispensaries and the town, rather than on issues that directly involve the CCC. He contends that the Commission has no legitimate stake in the matter and that its motion is untimely, citing that the plaintiffs filed their complaint in March 2024, while the CCC only indicated its intent to intervene in November 2024.
Doneski further claims that the litigation revolves around alleged breaches of contract and does not substantially engage the Commission’s interests. He asserts that the nature of the disputes is commercial and does not warrant the Commission’s involvement.
Chattopadhyay refuted Doneski’s claims, emphasizing that the Commission’s interest in the case is valid because the town’s arguments could limit its regulatory powers. The CCC insists that it must be included in the proceedings to adequately defend its authority.
As of now, a court date to rule on the Commission’s motion to intervene has not been scheduled. The case’s outcome could have significant implications for how HCAs are structured and enforced in Massachusetts, as well as for the regulatory environment surrounding the cannabis industry.
The CCC’s involvement highlights the complexities of cannabis regulation as municipalities and dispensaries navigate their agreements. The unfolding legal situation in Great Barrington may set a precedent for future disputes between local governments and cannabis businesses regarding HCAs.
English 
Spanish 
German 
Czech