AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Three New Mexico non-profit corporations, Sacred Garden, Inc., G & G Genetics, Inc., and New Mexico Top Organics Ultra Health, Inc., challenged a regulation limiting the number of medical cannabis plants that licensed producers could possess. They argued that this regulation violated the Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act. Subsequent to their appeal, the Cannabis Regulation Act (CRA) was enacted, transferring the regulation of medical cannabis to a different authority and altering plant possession limits, which the Defendants argued rendered the appeal moot.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the regulation limiting the number of medical cannabis plants violated the Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act and maintained that their appeal was not moot despite the enactment of the CRA, asserting that the issues of standing and jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act remained relevant.
• Defendants: Contended that the CRA's enactment and the subsequent regulatory changes addressing plant possession limits rendered the Plaintiffs' appeal moot, as the Defendants no longer had authority over the regulation of medical cannabis.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiffs' appeal challenging the plant possession limits under the Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act was rendered moot by the enactment of the Cannabis Regulation Act and subsequent regulatory changes.
• Whether the district court erred in determining that Plaintiffs lacked standing and that the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' appeal as moot.

Reasons

• Per Hanisee, C.J., with Duffy, J., and Baca, J., concurring:
  The Court found that the enactment of the CRA and subsequent regulatory changes, which transferred the regulation of medical cannabis to the Cannabis Control Division and significantly altered plant possession limits, rendered the Plaintiffs' appeal moot. The Court agreed with Defendants that the CRA's transfer of authority and the amendment of plant possession limits removed the basis of the Plaintiffs' original challenge. The Court concluded that no actual controversy existed because the regulatory changes addressed the Plaintiffs' concerns, leaving the Court unable to grant any actual relief through the appeal. The Court also noted that the issues raised did not present a constitutional question, involve a fundamental right, or suggest that similar future matters would likely evade review. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of actual controversy (paras 2-7).