throbber
Case 2:20-cv-00230-LPR Document 2 Filed 11/19/20 Page 1 of 4
`FILED
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT CWlf OF CHIC~~!:TY, ~3t;t
`
`2010;JUN \ 9. PM· tt: 11
`
`HOLISTIC INDUSTRIES OF ARKANSAS, LLC,
`and SAM EPSTEIN ANGEL
`
`-
`•df.1.-f,WA-.--
`PLAINTIFFS
`
`vs.
`
`CASE NO.-09CV-2020- fla · 3
`
`FEUERSTEIN KULICK LLP
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`COMPLAINJ'
`
`COME now the Plaintiffs, Holistic Industries of Arkansas, LLC, and Sam Epstein Angel,
`
`by and through their attorney, Kenneth P. "Casey" Castleberry, for their Complaint against the
`
`Defendant, Feuerstein Kulick LLP, alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Holistic Industries of Arkansas, LLC d/b/a as Sisters of Empathy
`
`("Holistic"), is an Ar~sas limited liability company with its principal place of business located
`
`in Chicot County, Arkansas.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff, Sam Epstein Angel, is· the majority member of Holistic Industries of
`
`· Arkansas, LLC, is an individual residing in Chicot County, Arkansas.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant, Feuerstein Kulick LLP (the "Firm" or "Defendant"), is a New York
`
`limited liability partnership with its principal place of business located in New York, New York.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over the parties in this action.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court.
`
`COUNT I-LEGAL MALPRACTICE
`
`6.
`
`Holistic engaged the Firm to ensure that Holistic's medical marijuana cultivation
`
`and dispensary applications satisfied the minimum qualifications for merit scoring in the Rules
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00230-LPR Document 2 Filed 11/19/20 Page 2 of 4
`
`and Regulations Governing the Application for Issuance, and Renewal of Licenses for Medical
`
`Marijuana Cultivation Facilities and Dispensaries in Arkansas ("Rules and Regulations")
`
`promulgated by the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission ("Commission").
`
`7.
`
`The Firm and its attorneys held themselves.out to Holistic as experts in the field of
`
`medical marijuana application compliance, authorized to practice law in the State of Arkansas, and
`
`free of conflicts for the representation.
`
`8.
`
`Holistic expended an extraordinary amount of time and money drafting and
`
`assembling its applications.
`
`9.
`
`Among other things, Holistic hired numerous professional.consultants to provide
`
`expertise and guidance, at substantial cost, to assist them in preparing their applications to receive
`
`the highest merit scoring in order to obtain cultivation and dispensary licenses.
`
`10.
`
`Holistic worked nights and weekends to ensure that the applications were complete
`
`in advance of the September 18, 2017, submission deadline.
`
`11.
`
`Holistic timely provided the information to the Firm and its attorneys for review so
`
`that the Firm and its attorneys could ensure Holistic satisfied the minimum qualifications set forth
`
`in the Commission's Rules and Regulations for merit scoring.
`
`12.
`
`The Firm and its attorneys failed to ensure that Holistic's applications satisfied the
`
`minimum qualifications requirements, and, as a result, the Commission determined that Holistic
`
`failed to satisfy the minimum qualifications requirements and disqualified the applications.
`
`13.
`
`As· a result, Holistic's applications were not submitted for merit scoring, and
`
`Holistic was deprived the opportunity to receive medical marijuana cultivation and dispensary
`
`licenses.
`
`2
`
`

`

`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - ...
`Case 2:20-cv-00230-LPR Document 2 Filed 11/19/20 Page 3 of 4
`
`14.
`
`During the Firm and its attorneys' representation of Holistic, the Firm and its
`
`attorneys had a duty to possess and use with reasonable diligence the skill ordinarily used by
`
`attorneys acting in the same or similar circumstances, and their failure to meet this standard is
`
`negligence.
`
`15.
`
`The Firm and its attorneys' negligent acts and omissions, include, but are not
`
`limited to, failing to ensure that Holistic's medical marijuana cultivation and dispensary
`
`application Sections A through D satisfied the minimum qualifications for merit scoring in the
`
`Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Commission. -
`
`16.
`
`But for the Firm and its attorneys' negligence, Holistic would have been awarded
`
`a medical marijuapa dispensary license, which is valued at more than $5,000,000.
`
`17.
`
`At all times during the course of the representation of Holistic, the attorneys were
`
`members of the Firm and were acting as agents of the Firm. Therefore, the Firm is vicariously
`
`liable for all damages caused by the attorneys' negligence.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiffs specifically reserve the right to amend and plead further in this case. The
`
`specific allegations set forth above do not and shall not constitute a complete list of the negligent
`
`acts committed by the Firm and its attorneys.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs respectfully demand a jury of 12 persons to try this case.
`
`WHEREFORE? Plaintiffs respectfully pray (i) that Holistic have and recover judgment
`
`from and against the Defendant in an amount to be determined by a jury, in excess of $5,000,000,
`
`together with prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law from September 18,
`
`2017 to the date judgment is entered; and (ii) for all other relief to which it may be entitled.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00230-LPR Document 2 Filed 11/19/20 Page 4 of 4
`
`By:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Holistic Industries of Arkansas, LLC, and
`~
`Kenneth P. "Casey" Castleberry, ABA #2003109
`MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD,
`SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
`555 East Main Street, Suite 200
`Post Office Box 2595
`Batesville, Arkansas 72503 -
`(870) 793-3821 - telephone
`(870) 793-3815-facsimile
`casey@castleberrylawfirm.com
`
`4
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket