A Michigan cannabis operator is fighting to keep its lawsuit alive after a county circuit judge dismissed the case on summary disposition - and the legal mechanism at the center of the dispute is a waiver that Puff Cannabis Company says it never agreed to in its original application. The case, playing out in Menominee County Circuit Court, sits at the intersection of local licensing authority, contract validity, and what counts as informed consent in a regulated adult-use market. The next hearing is set for June 12th at 1 p.m. at the Menominee County Courthouse.
How a Waiver Became the Center of Everything
Here's the catch: Puff's original recreational marijuana license application was submitted in December of 2024, at a point in time when the City of Menominee's ordinance still permitted unlimited recreational marijuana licenses. The waiver at issue - the one that, according to Judge Mary B. Barglind's ruling, permanently releases the city, its elected officials, and its employees from legal claims tied to the licensing process - was not part of that original filing. Puff's attorneys argue it appeared later, embedded in an updated application.
That distinction matters enormously. In cannabis licensing, operators routinely submit updated documentation as municipalities revise their processes. If a material term - particularly one that strips the applicant of future legal recourse - can be inserted into an amended filing without explicit acknowledgment or negotiation, the implications reach well beyond this single case. The question isn't just whether Puff signed the waiver. It's whether that signature, in context, constituted a meaningful, informed release of rights - or whether it was a condition quietly added to a process that had already begun under different rules.
Judge Barglind granted the city's motion for summary disposition, effectively ending the lawsuit before it could reach trial. On May 13th, Puff's attorney Jennifer Green filed a formal motion for reconsideration - a 20-page brief citing multiple legal precedents she believes the court should weigh before letting its earlier decision stand.
What This Signals for Cannabis Operators Dealing with Local Licensing
Municipal cannabis licensing in Michigan, as in most adult-use states, is a layered, locally controlled process. Cities and townships hold significant authority to cap license numbers, restrict zoning, set application timelines, and define who qualifies. That authority is real and legally grounded - but it can also create conditions where applicants are at a structural disadvantage, especially in smaller markets where the process is still being written in real time.
Puff's situation is a pointed example of the operational risk that comes with investing ahead of licensure. The company reports having cleaned up and renovated the former Family Video location on 10th Street in Menominee - a long-vacant property - in preparation for opening. That kind of pre-license capital commitment is common in the industry, where operators frequently spend on real estate buildout, equipment, and compliance infrastructure before a license is formally issued. In practice, though, that investment creates leverage - not for the operator, but against them. Abandoning a site after a major renovation isn't a straightforward decision, and municipalities know it.
What's striking here is the timing question around license caps. If Puff's original application was filed when the city ordinance allowed unlimited licenses - and the rules changed afterward - that sequence of events is likely central to Green's reconsideration argument. Courts in regulated industries have, in various contexts, examined whether applicants can be held to terms that post-date the conditions under which they originally entered a process. Whether Michigan cannabis law provides a comparable protection is precisely what this court will now be asked to revisit.
The Broader Risk: Waivers as a Licensing Tool
Licensing waivers that release municipal liability aren't unique to Menominee. Some jurisdictions include them as standard procedural language. But a blanket, permanent release covering all claims connected to the licensing process is a much heavier instrument - and if it can be inserted mid-application without clear notice, it raises legitimate compliance and legal-risk concerns for any operator going through a contested or evolving local approval process.
For cannabis business owners and their legal teams, the practical takeaway is straightforward: document every version of every application form submitted to a local licensing authority. Track changes in required documents with the same discipline applied to seed-to-sale compliance logs or state-mandated reporting. If an updated form introduces new terms - particularly anything that touches indemnification, waiver of claims, or release of liability - that should trigger an immediate legal review before the form is signed and returned.
To put it plainly, the licensing stage is where cannabis operators are most exposed. The regulatory infrastructure hasn't always caught up to the complexity of what municipalities are asking applicants to agree to.
What Happens Next
The June 12th hearing will determine whether Judge Barglind finds sufficient grounds to reconsider her ruling. If she declines, Puff's remaining path likely runs through the appellate courts. If she agrees to revisit the decision, the case moves back into substantive territory - and the question of whether the waiver was properly incorporated into Puff's application becomes one that will require a fuller evidentiary record.
Either outcome carries implications beyond Menominee. Michigan's adult-use market continues to mature, and disputes over local licensing authority - who controls access, how applications can be modified, and what applicants are legally bound by - will keep surfacing as municipalities refine their ordinances. For operators in markets where local approval is the final gating factor between a completed buildout and an open door, the Puff case is worth watching closely.
