Andrea White Appointed to Speak at the New Jersey State Bar Association 2023 Mid-Year Meeting in Paris

Ansell.Law is proud to announce Andrea White is scheduled to be a speaker at the New Jersey State Bar Association 2023 Mid-Year Meeting in Paris November 4-11. Andrea will present at the Diversity and Inclusion seminar on Josephine Baker and her instrumental involvement in Women’s Rights.

The first black woman to star in a major Hollywood motion picture, Josephine Baker was known as a groundbreaking dancer, singer, and actress. She also courageously aided the French resistance during World War II, earning the Resistance Medal from the French Committee of National Liberation and the Croix de Guerre by the French military. Andrea’s panel will explore Baker’s incredible legacy and discuss the related social and legal issues. The program will examine issues related to women’s rights, race, adoption, the LGBTQ+ community, and military law. Learn more here.

Ansell.Law Continues Criminal Defense Practice Growth With New Attorney

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that Courtney R. Sauer has joined the firm. As an associate based in our Ocean office, Courtney devotes her practice to criminal defense. She will defend clients in various criminal matters, including motor vehicle violations, disorderly persons offenses, and felonies. Courtney joins the busy criminal defense practice following Hillary Hudson Bryce’s recent addition to the team.

Licensed in New Jersey, Courtney is also a certified civil mediator with the Special Division-Small Claims Part. She earned her Juris Doctor from Rutgers University and her Bachelor of Science, cum laude, from Virginia Tech.

Protecting Small Businesses and Property Owners From Serial Plaintiffs and Self-Appointed “Testers” Who File Nuisance Suits Under the Americans With Disabilities Act

By Seth M. Rosenstein

Twenty-five years after its passage, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) has quite literally reshaped the landscape for disabled individuals, allowing them to participate more fully in society and avail themselves of the same facilities, services, and opportunities as everyone else. However, the ADA’s impact on the lives of millions of Americans has been matched by its impact on countless public-facing business and property owners who have had to modify their physical and online presence, practices, and properties to comply with the act’s accessibility requirements.

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities by businesses open to the public. The ADA requires that businesses open to the public provide full and equal enjoyment of their goods, services, facilities, and websites and has provided detailed requirements for how companies must do so. However, satisfying those requirements can be tricky, even for the most well-intentioned and diligent businesses. If a person with disabilities wants to enter a store, visit a website, or obtain services but cannot do so because the business has not complied with the ADA, that person can file a lawsuit for such shortcomings, leading to costly and disruptive litigation that can cause both financial and reputational harm.

Self-Appointed “Testers” File Thousands of Shakedown ADA Suits Each Year

But the risk of ADA-related litigation doesn’t just come from individuals who were actually prejudiced or denied access or services. For all its benefits, the ADA has also become a tool for serial plaintiffs and legal counsel, many of whom have never attempted and never intended to patronize a business, to file questionable, if not frivolous, lawsuits designed solely to shake down the business for a quick payout. 

These nuisance ADA suits have cost American businesses millions of dollars. According to one analysis, ADA lawsuits have increased by 320% since 2013. Many plaintiff’s law firms file hundreds of cookie-cutter ADA lawsuits each year, often utilizing the same serial plaintiffs for each action. One person can visit multiple businesses or websites in a single day solely to identify even the slightest accessibility transgressions in order to generate claims. 

Small businesses bear the brunt of this abusive litigation, as serial plaintiffs – often labeling themselves as self-appointed ADA compliance “testers” – specifically target small businesses because they typically have limited means to defend themselves. Given the potential damages, including the payment of exorbitant attorneys’ fees, settlement is not just the path of least resistance; it may be the only path for a small business that wants to avoid a potentially devastating judgment.

So, what can small business owners do to reduce the risk of finding themselves in the crosshairs of a serial ADA plaintiff?

Hire a Certified Accessibility Specialist To Conduct a Compliance Assessment

You can’t fix a problem you don’t know you have. Perhaps the single most important thing you can do to limit exposure from accessibility lawsuits is to conduct a complete accessibility assessment and review of your facilities and online presence. A Certified Accessibility Specialist (CASp) can evaluate your property or internet presence, identify specific accessibility issues, and then supply you with the compliance requirements specific to your facility and website. Similarly, if you are planning new construction or alterations, a CASp can review your building plans and specifications to ensure the resulting construction will be ADA-compliant.

Once you have a complete picture of all accessibility issues with your facility or website, the next step is working to remove barriers and impediments to access. “Barrier removal” is one of the key elements of the ADA, and whether you need to make modifications or alterations to remove any identified barriers depends on whether such changes are “readily achievable,” which is defined “as easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” This is a very fact-specific analysis that depends on the complexity and costs involved in removing the barrier as well as the size and financial condition of the business. A CASp can assist in identifying barriers and also advise as to whether removal is “readily achievable” under the ADA.

Keep Your Eye on the Supreme Court

In its new term starting this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether self-appointed “testers” who do not suffer actual harm because of an alleged ADA violation have standing to sue under the act. The Court’s decision in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer will resolve a split between federal appellate courts on the issue and could have a seismic impact on the viability of ADA nuisance suits against small businesses if it rules that such individuals do not, in fact, have standing to sue. The importance of the case can be seen in the fact that 47 organizations have filed amicus briefs with the Court, advocating both for and against tester standing. 

Hire Experienced ADA Defense Counsel

Before reflexively giving in to an ADA plaintiff and settling a claim, small business owners should consult with experienced counsel who can evaluate the complaint and determine the best path forward. As noted, many complaints filed by “testers” are cookie-cutter and may contain boilerplate allegations of deficiencies that do not actually exist. It is often the case that an aggressive defense of the claims – particularly when the claims are frivolous – benefits both the business or property owner defending the action, as well as the greater community by deterring vexatious litigation primarily focused on lining counsel’s pockets.

If you have questions about your ADA obligations and protecting against accessibility lawsuits, please contact Seth Rosenstein at Ansell.Law.

Law, Not Lease, Defines Default

In a victory for landlords dealing with a tenant in bankruptcy, Ansell.Law attorney Anthony D’Artiglio recently secured a ruling in a reported decision that broadly defined the “defaults” tenants must cure in order to assume a lease. The decision in In re Old Market Group Holdings Corp. clarifies that a “default” as set forth in the Bankruptcy Code is given its ordinary meaning, regardless of any narrower definition of default contained in the lease.

The firm represented 400 Walnut Avenue, LLC (“Walnut”), which owned a product distribution center leased by the debtor, Fairway Group Holdings (“Fairway”), a regional grocery store chain. Fairway filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and sold most of its assets under the confirmed plan of reorganization. This included assigning its lease of Walnut’s property to another supermarket chain according to Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 365 permits a debtor-lessee under an unexpired lease to assume (and subsequently assign) that lease if the debtor believes that assumption is in the estate’s best interest. If there is an existing default under the lease, Section 365(b)(1) requires that the debtor cure any such defaults as a prerequisite to assumption, among other obligations of the debtor.  

The dispute concerned Fairway’s responsibility, under Section 365(b), to cure defaults under its lease — specifically, its failure to make required repairs — when it assigned that lease. Fairway claimed that it had no obligation to make those repairs as its failure to do so was not a “default” as defined in the lease because Walnut allegedly did not demand that Fairway make those repairs before Fairway filed for Bankruptcy. As such, Fairway asserted that it could not be liable for the cost to make repairs to the property because no “default” — as defined by the Lease — occurred prior to Bankruptcy. 

“Any Failure To Perform” = Default 

In response, Walnut argued that any notice provision in the lease was irrelevant because a “default” under an assumed lease is given its ordinary meaning pursuant to Section 365, not the terms of the lease, and the outstanding repairs constituted a default as that term is plainly understood — a failure to perform a defined obligation. Accordingly, Fairway should be responsible for the cost of any repairs.

The bankruptcy court rejected Fairway’s position and agreed with the argument put forth by D’Artiglio on behalf of Walnut. The court ruled that: “Both the text and the purposes of [Section 365(b)(1)] compel the conclusion that the statutory term ‘default’ means any failure to perform under the assumed contract or lease, regardless of the definition of default contained in that contract or lease.”

The court went on to note that “Consideration of the purposes of Section 365(b)(1) reinforces the conclusion that the statutory term ‘default’ should be construed to include any failure to perform contractually required obligations.” Citing prior decisions, the court further stated that “The case law is consistent with this plain-meaning reading of the statute. When debtors seek to assume leases or contracts under which they have failed to make required repairs, courts routinely require the debtor to make those repairs — that is, to cure the defaults — as a condition to assumption.”

The interpretation of “default” articulated by the court applies to assumed executory contracts and assumed unexpired leases. The ruling Ansell’s lawyer obtained means that debtors will likely need to cure any failure, shortcoming, or unfulfilled obligation under a lease or contract — whether material or not, whether a “default” as defined in the agreement or not — before they can assume or assign such agreements. This further protects parties, including lessors, whose interests may be adversely affected by an uncured contract breach by a debtor.

If you have any questions about this case or its impact, please contact Anthony D’Artiglio.

Ansell.Law Welcomes Former Chief Assistant Prosecutor Hillary Bryce

Ansell.Law is thrilled to announce that Hillary Hudson Bryce has joined the firm’s Ocean office. Hillary devotes her practice to criminal defense and joins the firm following a stellar twenty-five-year career serving the people of Ocean County as chief assistant prosecutor. She will dedicate her time and vast courtroom skills to defending clients in various criminal matters, including motor vehicle violations, disorderly persons offenses, and felonies.

Hillary served in the Juvenile, Grand Jury, Trial Team, Domestic Violence, and High-Tech Crime Units at the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office. Gaining notoriety for her trial abilities, she shared her legal insights in several televised criminal documentaries.

Licensed in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Hillary is also a certified criminal trial attorney and is actively involved with the Ocean County Bar Association. She earned her Juris Doctor and Bachelor of Arts from Rutgers University.

Jennifer Krimko Quoted in NJ.com Article About the Rezoning of a Historic Golf Course

The Old Orchard Country Club in Eatontown is moving closer to its transformation into an age-restricted housing development with open space and commercial uses on the highway. A recent ordinance amendment established new zoning regulations for the 94-year-old golf course, allowing up to 145 age-restricted, single-family homes with amenities off of Route 71 (Monmouth Road) and commercial development on Route 36. The firm, through Shareholder Jennifer S. Krimko represents the contract purchaser and future developer of Old Orchard. She addressed the Council at the hearing on the Ordinance and her sharing her statements on the zoning framework and the balance being struck between her client and the community is highlighted in this NJ.com article.

Jennifer is co-chair of Ansell.Law’s Land Use & Zoning Department. Our attorneys assist clients in navigating land development. They offer thorough advice on zoning due diligence and development prospects, managing the process from planning to compliance. From small renovations to large commercial projects, our attorneys are prepared to guide clients through the approval process. Please contact Jennifer for more information.

Joshua Bauchner Presenting During the New Jersey League of Municipalities Conference

Shareholder Joshua Bauchner will join a panel of experts presenting “The Municipal Cannabis Matrix Reloaded” at the New Jersey League of Municipalities Annual Conference in Atlantic City, November 14-16, 2023. The largest municipal gathering in the nation, this conference provides New Jersey’s local government officials and professionals with extensive learning opportunities, meaningful networking, and a comprehensive showcase of the latest product innovations.

The panel will provide a brief introduction to municipal cannabis before a discussion with city leaders exploring what is and is not working in their cities. Joshua will share insights on how to avoid municipal cannabis litigation. The panel will also address a checklist for governing bodies to consider when drafting or amending cannabis ordinances, police enforcement, smoke-free laws, and cannabis taxation for municipal tax assessors and CFOs. Learn more and register here.

Joshua leads Ansell.Law’s dedicated Controlled Substances & Regulatory Law Practice Group. Our attorneys understand the laws related to the production, sale, use, regulation, and legalization of controlled substances, including hemp, cannabis, and psychedelics. Controlled substance law remains a multifaceted and complex field with, at times, conflicting regulations from different governing bodies. We are prepared to assist in all aspects of this emerging field and are committed to helping our clients understand their rights and opportunities in this complex and evolving area of law. Please contact Joshua for additional information.

Joshua Bauchner Quoted in New Jersey Monitor Article

Shareholder Joshua Bauchner is quoted in a New Jersey Monitor article discussing the recent decision impacting New Jersey law enforcement officers’ rights to use cannabis when not on duty. The closely watched case of wrongful termination resulted in a win for police officers who want to use cannabis legally while off duty. The conflict between state and federal law makes this a complex and nuanced issue. Read the article.

Joshua leads Ansell.Law’s dedicated Controlled Substances & Regulatory Law Practice Group. Our attorneys understand the laws related to the production, sale, use, regulation, and legalization of controlled substances, including hemp, cannabis, and psychedelics. Controlled substance law remains a multifaceted and complex field with, at times, conflicting regulations from different governing bodies. We are prepared to assist in all aspects of this emerging field and are committed to helping our clients understand their rights and opportunities in this complex and evolving area of law. Please contact Joshua for additional information.

Controlled Substances & Regulatory Law August Update

In the rapidly evolving area of controlled substances law, our attorneys are at the forefront of recent developments and important issues affecting business owners in this exciting space. Read below to learn more.

New Lawsuit Challenges Unconstitutional Bureaucratic Overreach by New York Cannabis Regulators

A new lawsuit challenges unconstitutional overreach by NY cannabis regulators that has delayed or denied dispensary licenses for hundreds of qualified applicants. Read More.

New York’s Cannabis Control Board Approves New Regulations for Select Cannabinoid Products

To curtail the largely uncontrolled New York market of hemp-derived cannabinoids, state regulators recently approved new regulations. However, these regulations are having an immediate negative impact on thousands of small businesses. Read More.

Ansell Law’s New York Controlled Substances and Regulatory Law Capabilities

In addition to our strong foothold navigating New Jersey’s controlled substances industry, Ansell Law has a New York presence where we assist clients seeking a Conditional Adult-Use Retail Dispensary (CAURD) license. Read More.

New Cannabis License Categories Will Become Available in New Jersey

Beginning September 27, 2023, the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Committee (“CRC”) will open three new adult-use cannabis license categories- Wholesaler, Delivery, and Distribution- in the Garden State. Read More.

New Coalition Ups Pressure to Reschedule Cannabis From List of Controlled Substances

A new coalition of cannabis lawyers, researchers, activists, and businesses is ramping up pressure on the Biden Administration to either remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act’s list of controlled substances or reschedule it to a lower tier.  Read More.

In Major Advancement, FDA Issues First-Ever Draft Guidance on Clinical Trials for Psychedelic Drugs 

In a significant step that offers the promise of new medical treatments and advancements, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its first-ever guidance for those wishing to study and test psychedelics for medicinal use. Read More.

Firm News

Joshua S. Bauchner and Kelsey M. Barber, two attorneys in our Controlled Substances and Regulatory Law Group, will present during the National Business Institute’s Marijuana Business Operations in New Jersey seminar on August 21, 2023. They will address critical human resources, labor, and employment issues affecting cannabis and marijuana businesses operating in New Jersey. Bauchner and Barber also will provide an ethics presentation exploring rules of professional conduct, the duty to pursue justice, attorney use of cannabis, and attorney ownership of cannabis businesses.

The full-day seminar will be offered live online on August 21, 2023, and available to view on demand. Learn more and register for this information-packed program presented by cannabis industry leaders.

Bauchner also contributed to the book “New Jersey Cannabis Regulation,” published by LexisNexis, which focuses on marijuana laws and regulations as interpreted by NJ courts. The book is available to order.

Ansell Law’s dedicated Controlled Substances & Regulatory Law Practice Group has an in-depth understanding of the laws related to the production, sale, use, regulation, and legalization of controlled substances, including hemp, cannabis, and psychedelics. Controlled substances law remains a multifaceted and complex field with, at times, conflicting regulations from different governing bodies. Our attorneys are prepared to assist in all aspects of this emerging field. We are committed to helping our clients understand their rights and the opportunities in this complex and evolving area of law. For additional information, please contact Joshua S. Bauchner or Kelsey M. Barber at (973) 247-9000.

New Lawsuit Challenges Unconstitutional Bureaucratic Overreach by New York Cannabis Regulators

Creation of Unauthorized CAURD Licensing Category Has Delayed or Denied Licenses for Hundreds of Qualified Applicants 

On August 2, 2023, a complaint was filed in the New York Supreme Court seeking to reverse the state’s regression from bureaucratic oversight to bureaucratic overreach regarding the regulation of its adult-use cannabis market. Filed on behalf of four service-disabled veterans who planned to pursue adult-use dispensary licenses, the suit asserts they were unfairly prejudiced by the actions of the state’s Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) and Cannabis Control Board (CCB) when those agencies unconstitutionally assumed the Legislature’s role by supplanting their own social and economic policies for those of New York’s elected officials.

The complaint illustrates a common and concerning issue that has arisen in several East Coast states that have legalized recreational marijuana in recent years. Specifically, the institution of regulatory schemes of dubious legality that have delayed the creation and implementation of well-regulated and equitable cannabis markets as set forth in the legislation authorizing those markets. These transgressions have led authorities to spend their time and resources engaged in artificial and harmful enforcement actions against individuals simply attempting to avail themselves of legalization’s intended opportunities and benefits.

CAURD License Scheme Unauthorized by Legislature

In this case, the plaintiffs are challenging the OCM’s and CCB’s creation of an entirely new licensing category called the Conditional Adult-Use Retail Dispensary (the “CAURD”) license. As outlined in the complaint, those bodies improperly limited eligibility for this special, yet legally impermissible, license category to only “justice-involved individuals” who own a profitable “qualifying business.” Subsequently, they opened the adult-use retail dispensary application period for only those individuals that qualified as CAURD applicants. This action indefinitely postponed the licensing of hundreds of additional dispensaries necessary to satisfy consumer demand, including licenses the plaintiffs intended to seek.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs are asking the court to enter an order declaring OCM’s CAURD license an unconstitutional licensing category that violates New York’s Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act and contravenes New York’s separation of powers doctrine. They also ask the court to indefinitely enjoin OCM and CCB from awarding or further processing any more CAURD licenses and/or authorizing any more CAURD licensees to open adult-use retail dispensaries.

On August 7, 2023, the court entered a temporary restraining order prohibiting OCM and CCB from awarding or further processing any more CAURD licenses and/or conferring operational approval upon any more provisional or existing CAURD licensees. The litigation remains pending.

Ansell’s dedicated Controlled Substances & Regulatory Law Practice Group has an in-depth understanding of the laws related to the production, sale, use, regulation, and legalization of controlled substances, including hemp, cannabis, and psychedelics. Controlled substances law remains a multifaceted and complex field with, at times, conflicting regulations from different governing bodies. Our attorneys are prepared to assist in all aspects of this emerging field. They are committed to helping our clients understand their rights and opportunities in this complex and evolving area of law. For additional information, please contact Joshua S. Bauchner at (973) 247-9000 or jbauchner@ansell.law.