IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

SOUTHSHORE RESTORE LLC; HEARTLAND )

GREENS LLC; BLOUNTS & MOORE LLC; )

LAKESHORE GREENS LLC; THE DOOBIE )

ROOM LLC; BOTAVI WELLNESS LLC; )

DEEP EARTH LLC; THE HEALING SOURCE )

LLC; EMERALD COAST LLC; BIAMED )

LLC; NORTHLAND DISPENSARY LLC; )

CANNABISTRO LLC; PGW LLC; EMERALD ) Judge Alonso

ISLAND LLC; PRAIRIE GRASS LLC; )

JG IL LLC; RENU LLC; TC APPLICO ) Case No. 20 C 5264

LLC; THIRD COAST GREENHOUSE; )

KAP JG LLC; and CELESTIA LLC; )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

 v. )

)

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL )

AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION; )

BRETT BENDER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR; and )

AS-YET UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS, )

)

Defendants. )

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, SOUTHSHORE RESTORE LLC; HEARTLAND GREENS LLC; 

BLOUNTS & MOORE LLC; LAKESHORE GREENS LLC; THE DOOBIE ROOM LLC; BOTAVI 

WELLNESS LLC; DEEP EARTH LLC; THE HEALING SOURCE LLC; EMERALD COAST 

LLC; BIAMED LLC; NORTHLAND DISPENSARY LLC; CANNABISTRO LLC; PGW LLC; 

EMERALD ISLAND LLC; PRAIRIE GRASS LLC; JG IL LLC; RENU LLC; TC APPLICO 

LLC; THIRD COAST GREENHOUSE; KAP JG LLC; and CELESTIA LLC, by their 

attorneys, hereby submit this Complaint against Defendants. In support 

of the relief requested herein, Plaintiffs state as follows:

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:109
2

Introduction

1. Next week, the State of Illinois, through the Illinois 

Department of Financial and Professional Regulation ("Department"), 

proposes to give away 75 cannabis dispensary licenses collectively 

worth more than $1,000,000,000 (billion) dollars to a group of 21 

companies, many if not most owned by politically-connected insiders.

2. Although there was purportedly an open competition to 

determine eligibility for these 75 licenses, the Department has 

announced plans to award the 75 licenses to these 21 companies by lot 

(hereafter, the "Lottery") without providing any opportunity for 

administrative or judicial review for the 4,000+ applicants whom the 

State has deemed ineligible to participate in the Lottery.

3. The Department's decision to go forward with a plan to 

award more than a billion dollars in licenses to a group of 21 

politically-connected insider companies without providing the 4,000+ 

unsuccessful applicants any opportunity to challenge their 

ineligibility is unconstitutional, and cannot be permitted.

4. This is particularly so where, as here, there are 

serious, obvious and objectively verifiable problems with way the 

Plaintiffs’ applications were scored. Accordingly, in conjunction 

with this Complaint, Plaintiffs herein seek injunctive relief for the 

reasons specified below.

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:110
3

Jurisdiction and Venue

4. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 

and 28 U.S.C. 1367, as Plaintiffs bring a federal claim arising under 

the United States Constitution as well as a state law claim so related 

as to form part of the same case or controversy. Venue is proper as 

the events giving rise to these claims occurred in this district, some 

of the Plaintiffs reside in this district and the agency Defendant 

maintains its offices in this district.

Parties

5. The Plaintiffs in this action consist of 21 different 

social equity applicants. Some are majority owned by social equity from 

disproportionately affected communities, along with partners, but 

more than half are wholly-owned by groups of social equity applicants 

who came together for the chance to break into the cannabis industry.

6. Plaintiff Southshore Restore is 100% owned and 

controlled African American residents and business owners from the 

City’s South Shore neighborhood. The team is made up of community 

organizers, environmental justice advocates, military veterans, urban 

farmers, small business owners and young professionals.

7. Plaintiff Heartland Greens is also 100% African 

American, mostly female, led by Marquita Hollins, a military veteran. 

Residents of the City’s West Side, the group was brought together 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:111
4

for this opportunity by a wrongfully incarcerated man who posted a 

notice in his neighborhood barbershop about breaking into legal 

cannabis. Members include a Nutrition Educator at UIC, school board 

members, and employees of local community organizations.

 8. Plaintiff Doobie Room is 100% owned and 

controlled by African American social equity military veterans. 

Their collective accomplishments include starting a nonprofit and 

business incubator for veterans, as well as running a successful 

multistate hemp company.

 9. Plaintiff Lakeshore Greens is majority owned 

controlled by African American long-time residents and business 

owners from Evanston. The team includes one member who runs a 

diversity and inclusion training program, two master gardeners who 

own a hemp production consulting company and who also run gardening 

programs for children, as well as the founder of an African American 

Archival History foundation. 

10. Plaintiff Blounts & Moore is 100% owned and 

controlled by African American (and mostly female) business woman. 

This team includes the first African-American woman to own a major 

furniture retail store in North Carolina.

11. Plaintiff PGW is owned and controlled by women with 

a decade of collective cannabis industry experience. Majority 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:112
5

African American owned, this team has operated a cannabis cultivation 

and manufacturing facility, as well as active membership and 

leadership of multiple cannabis industry groups.

12. Defendant Bret Bender is the Deputy Director of the 

Defendant Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation

(the “Department”).

Background

13. In 2014, the General Assembly passed a law to award 

licenses to a limited number of companies to sell medical marijuana 

in Illinois. Called the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Act (the 

"Act"), the law created for the first time in Illinois a system of 

licensing dispensaries through which it would be legal to sell 

marijuana to patients suffering from conditions that are alleviated 

by marijuana. The Act places the Department in charge of the licenses.

14. Unlike some states in which there are an unlimited 

number of dispensary licenses, Illinois chose to strictly limit the 

number of available licenses. That limitation has made these licenses 

extremely valuable. Some recipients of these licenses have sold their 

dispensaries for tens of millions of dollars. 

15. In 2019, the General Assembly amended the Act, creating 

rights to up to 60 new "Early Approval" secondary site dispensary 

licenses. 410 ILCS 705/15-15. Because, as described above, the State 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:113
6

awarded 55 of the 60 available dispensary licenses in the original 

round, there are likewise 55 businesses eligible for Early Approval 

secondary site licenses.

16. The Act as amended provides that the only people 

eligible to win the 55 new Early Approval dispensary licenses are the 

set of people who already own companies holding existing dispensary 

licenses. As it turned out, the only companies with existing dispensary 

licenses are majority-owned by Caucasian males. Zero companies with 

existing licenses are majority-owned by women or by minorities.

17. There was considerable public outcry over the decision 

to award the next 55 dispensary licenses to the same people who already 

owned the existing dispensaries, and one of the primary criticisms was 

that this decision effectively shut of the cannabis industry many small 

business owners and entrepreneurs in disadvantaged communities most 

effected by the War on Drugs.

18. To try to justify this unequal distribution of valuable 

State resources, the amended Act further provides that minority-owned 

and female-owned businesses, while ineligible to apply for any of the 

55 Early Approval licenses, would nonetheless be eligible to apply for 

a third round of dispensary licenses, consisting of 75 new Conditional 

Adult Use licenses, scheduled to be awarded before the end of 2021 

(hereafter, the "Licenses").

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:114
7

19. In 2019, the Department announced a process to award 

these 75 Licenses. To compete for them, companies could apply and would 

be graded on various measures, with up to 252 total points.

20. The Department selected KPMG via a no-bid, $4.2M 

contract to grade the applications.

21. To facilitate participation in the nascent cannabis 

industry by people disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs, 

the State announced that 50 of the 250 possible points would be awarded 

to applicants who qualify as Social Equity Applicants, meaning that 

the company was majority-owned by person(s) who, for example, either 

lived in certain zip codes designated as disproportionately affected, 

or who had prior cannabis arrests.

22. The Defendant, as well as the State and its Governor, 

promised that this round of new licenses was specifically designed 

diversify the cannabis industry and open it to Social Equity Applicants 

who had traditionally been excluded. Members of communities in need 

of economic development were encouraged to apply. Many did, investing 

considerable money, sometimes their entire life savings. Numerous 

teams made up of true Social Equity Applicants spent a year or more 

preparing applications for a chance to participate.

23. The State announced a special fund to $20M fund help 

Social Equity Applicants finance their dispensary businesses in the 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:115
8

event they won. Traditional rules that would have required applicants 

to own and control property during the application process (an 

expensive proposition) were waived.

24. To further level the playing field, according to the 

FAQs published by the Department, many of the measures on which 

applicants were evaluated were designated to be graded via binary 

scoring, i.e., pass/fail: the applicant either got all of the points, 

or did not. Among the measures that were designated pass/fail included 

the applicant's experience in cannabis, its diversity status, social 

equity and veteran status, and its community plan.

25. By making the scoring on these key measures binary, the 

Department created a contest where applicants could not distinguish 

their credentials on factors such as experience, diversity, and 

community involvement. The implication of such a scoring system is that 

many, if not most, applicants would receive maximum (tie) scores.

26. More than 700 companies submitted a total of more than 

4,000 applicants. Many of those 700 companies, including the 

Plaintiffs, were majority-owned by true Social Equity Applicants who 

live in economically disadvantaged areas.

27. In August of 2020, the Department announced emergency 

rules providing for what would happen if there was a tie for the highest 

scoring applicants. All such applicants thus became eligible to 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:116
9

participate in the Lottery (hereafter, "Tied Applicants").

28. For purposes of the Act, the State is divided into 17 

Regions. For most of the State's Regions, the Department will award 

one to three licensees via this Lottery process. The primary exception 

was the Region covering the greater Chicagoland area, for which there 

47 Lotteries will be held to award the 47 Licenses.

29. Applicants were allowed to file as many applications 

as they desired (at the cost of $2,500 per application for Social Equity 

Applicants) but Tied Applicants are only eligible to enter into and 

participate in the Lottery the same number of times as there are 

Licenses available for that Region. In other words, for a Region with 

two Licenses available, all Tied Applicants who applied in that Region 

are allowed to participate in that Lottery a maximum of two times.

30. On September 3, 2020, the Department published a list 

of Tied Applicants, all of whom scored the maximum 252 points. There 

were a grand total of only 21 companies, or less than 3% of the total 

number that applied, and a number of them appear to have overlapping 

ownership.

31. Under the State’s present plan, each of those Tied 

Applicants who applied in a given Region will be allowed to participate 

in the 75 Lottery drawings by which these 75 Licenses will be awarded 

by lot. Other than these 21 companies, who will each win multiple 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:117
10

licenses, no other companies will be allowed to participate in the 

Lottery.

32. Unlike most graded competitions for cannabis licenses, 

this one did not control for political influence or bias by scoring 

anonymously. The vast majority of states that conduct competitions to 

award cannabis licenses do so via a process that requires applicants 

to redact the names and affiliations of their principals from the 

graders for grading purposes.

33. Inexplicably, this competition was not graded 

anonymously. The application and the FAQs were clear that the Exhibits 

that would allow KPMG to identify the principal officers of each 

applicant were to include all personal identifying information. And 

unlike in other states where an anonymized email address was required 

for contact purposes through the deficiency process, applicants also 

received deficiency notices to their personal email accounts 

directly from KPMG, and used those same email addresses to login to 

the KPMG online portal to upload any exhibits for which they received 

a deficiency.

34. Based on their corporate registrations, at least some 

of the 21 Tied Applicants declared eligible for these enormously 

valuable licenses (collectively worth more than a billion dollars) are 

politically-connected. These include, for example, separate groups 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:118
11

owned by a former Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department; 

Illinois gaming operators, including the president of Lucky Lincoln 

Gaming, a slot machine company, partnered on the application with a 

Senior analyst in Illinois government; the Executive Director of the 

Illinois cannabis lobbying group, NORML; the owner of a private 

equity/real estate fund; the owner and namesake of an iconic Gold Coast 

restaurant/brand teamed up with several politically-connected 

individuals, including the former Director of Operations for the 

Illinois House Republican Organization; a Democratic Committeeman who 

is also a lobbyist; and three separate groups associated with the law 

firm of Bob Morgan, the original Governor-appointed Director for the 

Illinois Medical Cannabis Program.

35. According to his web bio, Morgan was one of the primary 

architects who created not only the Program itself, but the original 

“selection process for licensed dispensary facilities.” Exh. 1 at 10. 

Hiring the law firm of a tied-in lobbyist is obviously not a crime, 

but it bears note that a minimum of one-seventh of the winners (3 of 

the 21) appear to have retained the firm of someone who not only had 

top-tier connections, but may well have had additional insight into 

the “secret-formula” maximum scoring process, a process that only 21 

of 700+ companies were somehow able to navigate successfully.

36. Additionally, at least one Tied Applicant lists as a Manager 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:119
12

a person identified on LinkedIn as a risk consultant for KMPG, the 

contractor that decided (not anonymously) which very few companies 

would participate in the Lottery.

37. There appear to be at most one or two true, wholly-owned

social equity companies. Even more curious, very few of the 21 have 

any obvious connected to the cannabis industry, begging the question 

of what metric could have justified their selection from among the 700+ 

others.

38. In a letter to Gov. Pritker, the Legislative Black and 

Latino caucuses have each already called for the Administration to 

suspend the lottery “over concerns about an applications process that 

allowed many clouted and seemingly well capitalized businesses to 

move onto the next phase.”

39. Pursuant to the Emergency Rules promulgated and 

announced by the Department, the Lottery for issuing the Licenses will 

be held at least five business days after the Tied Applicant list was 

released, which was shortly before the Labor Day weekend. That could 

be as soon as Friday, September 10, 2020.

40. However, to date the Department has released no

information or explanation for why the 4,000+ unsuccessful applicants 

were not selected for the Lottery, or why the 21 Tied Applicants were 

selected.

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:120
13

41. For those applicants not among the 21 selected for the 

Lottery, the Department has announced on its website that there will 

be no process for agency administrative review, and that all such 

applicants not selected for the Lottery have no recourse other than 

to file lawsuits.

42. Having established a procedure where the State is going 

to give away more than a billion dollars of valuable Licenses to what 

appears to be a group of 21 politically-connected insiders, it is 

unconstitutional to deny the 4,000+ unsuccessful applicants any 

ability to timely challenge the process by which they were not selected 

to participate in this Lottery. Due process requires a procedure be 

made available in time to obtain a meaningful remedy by participating 

in the Lottery process.

43. Moreover, state law authorized a total of 75 Licenses; 

there is no statutory authorization to award more Licenses. If the 

Lottery proceeds and these Licenses are awarded, the winning 

applicants begin the process of building their dispensaries. The 

Department will likely argue that there is no ability to make whole 

(award a new License) to any unsuccessful applicants who can 

subsequently prove they should have been permitted to participate in 

the Lottery, much less that they would have won a License by lot.

44. Each of the Plaintiffs should have qualified to be Tied 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:121
14

Applicant. Each Plaintiff was majority-owned by Social Equity 

Applicants, and each Plaintiff is qualified to operate a dispensary 

business. Plaintiffs all submitted applications that should have 

received all of the available points.

45. On September 3, 2020, the same day the Department 

announced the 21 Tied Applicants, the Defendant informed Plaintiff and 

others that they were not a Tied Applicant, and thus ineligible to 

participate in the Lottery. A copy of the Department’s determination 

notification, which was apparently identical for each of the 4,000+ 

unsuccessful applicants, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The 

Department provided no explanation, no information about Plaintiffs' 

scores, and no reasons or even information about why they had not been 

deemed a Tied Applicant.

46. The same day they were informed that they were not Tied 

Applicants eligible to participate in the Lottery, Plaintiffs made a 

written request on the Department and its Director for information so 

they could assess the merits of their claims for judicial review. The 

information sought included Plaintiffs' scores and scorecards, the 

scoring rubric and evaluation criteria, any or all documents 

memorializing the reasons/rationale why Plaintiffs did not score 

enough points to become Tied Applicants, and any and all documents 

relating to the scores of those that did.

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:122
15

47. The Department has since responded to only portion of 

this request, transmitting to one of the Plaintiffs (“JG ILL”) a 

scorecard showing how it was scored.

48. The score attributed to JG ILL is obviously flawed. 

First, JG ILL submitted identical applications in all of the 75 

regions, but at least some of the scores it received on certain measures 

in some of the Regions were different from scores for the same measure 

in other Regions. For example, JG ILL received a 16 out of 16 for most 

of its recall plans (Exhibit G) but only a 14 out of 16 in the with 

the identical recall plan in the Rock Island Region. In other words, 

identical application plans, different scores.

49. More troublingly, JG ILL received zero points out of 

a possible 5 points for being majority-owned by Illinois residents. 

This makes no sense. JG ILL is majority-owned by Illinois residents, 

and it submitted all of the required proof with its application in the 

form specified by the Department. The decision to award JG ILL zero 

points is absurd, and suggests an extremely incompetent process.

50. JG IL also received zero points out of a possible 5 

points for being majority owned by military veterans. This is also 

incorrect. JG ILL is majority-owned by military veterans, and it 

submitted all of the required proof with its application in the form 

specified by the Department.

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:123
16

51. JG IL also received zero points out of a possible 50 

points for Social Equity Status. This is also incorrect. JG ILL 

qualified as a Social Equity Applicant, and it submitted all of the 

required proof with its application in the form specified by the 

Department.

52. The only other measure for which JG ILL was docked any 

points is “Exhibit J” regarding the floor plan. The Department did not 

inform JG ILL why it did not receive the maximum points on this element, 

but JG ILL’s floor plan should have received the maximum points. The 

Act specifies that no property is required (to facilitate competitive 

applications by Social Equity Applicants), and the Department’s FAQ’s 

specifically state that no additional points are awarded for 

applicants that apply with property. JG ILL’s floor plan is thus no 

less qualified than any other company’s floor plan.

53. The Act states that applicants get opportunity to cure

any deficiencies with their applications. Specifically, 410 ILCS 

705/15-30(b) states as follows (emphasis added):

If the Department receives an application that fails to provide 

the required elements contained in this Section, the Department 

shall issue a deficiency notice to the applicant. The applicant 

shall have 10 calendar days from the date of the deficiency 

notice to resubmit the incomplete information. Applications 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:124
17

that are still incomplete after this opportunity to cure will 

not be scored and will be disqualified.

54. The dispensary application itself states (emphasis 

added):

If the Division receives an application that is deficient in 

any respect, the Division will issue a deficiency notice via 

e-mail to the primary and alternate contacts identified on the 

application form. The applicant will have 10 calendar days from 

the date the deficiency notice is sent to submit the information 

requested. If the applicant does not provide all required 

information necessary to make its application complete within 

the allotted time, the application will be rejected and not 

considered for a license, and the application fee will not be 

returned.

55. In practice, the Department correctly interpreted the 

Act to require it to provide applicants an opportunity to cure any 

shortcomings in the applications as submitted. 

56. For example, six other applicants (not Plaintiffs in 

this action) received a notice from the Department during the grading 

period dated May 1, 2020 from FPR.AdultUseCannabis@illinois.gov under 

the subject line “Notice of Deficiency in Dispensary Application.”

An illustrative example of this notice states in relevant part:

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:125
18

This e-mail serves as your notification that one or more deficiencies 

have been identified in your application for a Conditional Adult Use 

Dispensing Organization License. Please carefully read the 

instructions below and submit the information addressing the 

identified deficiencies.

You have 10 calendar days beginning the day after the date this 

e-mail was sent to submit the required information in the manner 

described below. Submissions delivered to the Illinois Department 

of Financial and Professional Regulations by any other means or after 

this timeframe will not be accepted. In your submission, do not 

include any supplemental information related to your application 

other than that required to address the identified deficiencies. Such 

supplemental information will not be considered in the review and 

scoring process. Please note that deficiencies identified are not 

comprehensive of all applicable statutes identified in the Cannabis 

Regulation and Tax Act (410 ILCS 705/).

IMPORTANT: If you do not submit the required information in the 

required manner within 10-calendar days, your entire application 

will not be scored and will be disqualified. (410 ILCS 705/15-30(b)). 

You will NOT receive a refund of your application fee.

Below, are the deficiencies in your application that have been 

identified at this time. This may not be a complete list of all 

deficiencies in your application, so please continue to monitor your 

e-mail account for additional correspondence regarding other 

deficiencies that may be identified in the future.

Instructions for Submitting Information to Address Deficiencies:

1. Review the list below to learn which deficiencies apply to your 

application.

2. Prepare responses in PDF format addressing each deficiency. A 

separate PDF document should be created for each Exhibit in which 

a deficiency has been identified. Unless the deficiency is that an 

entire Exhibit is missing, only submit supplemental information and 

materials that address the deficiency identified. For each corrected 

Exhibit, title the document “Exhibit [letter of 

exhibit]_[Organization FEIN Number or Organization 

Name]_Deficiency_[Region ID(s) separated by underscores].”

File Naming Convention Example: Exhibit 

N_81-3780373-Deficiency_1_4_10_17

****

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:126
19

3. Once you’ve assembled your PDF responses, you will access the 

Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) file as described in the 

information below with the following username and password. For SFTP 

related questions only, please contact the following email 

address: us-advIDFPR@kpmg.comand a resource will get back to you 

promptly. We recommend logging into the SFTP as soon as possible to 

determine any access issues as extensions to submit your content 

beyond the 10 calendar days will not be provided.

 

Listing of alphabetical deficiencies in your Application as provided 

by Section 15-30(b) of the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act:

BLS Region: ** * Cape Girardeau

Exhibit F

The proposed business plan did not include the requirement for an 

estimated volume of cannabis the applicant plans to store at the 

dispensary.

Exhibit H

The application did not include the requirement for an executed 

contract with a private security contractor.

Exhibit J

The application did not include the requirement for a description 

of the features that will provide accessibility as required by the 

ADA.

The application did not include the requirement for a description 

of the air treatment systems that will be installed to reduce odors.

The application did not include the required statement that the 

issuance of a license will not have a detrimental impact on the 

community in which the applicant wishes to locate.

Exhibit P

The application did not include evidence which establishes the 

applicant’s status as a Social Equity Applicant. In particular, the 

application did not provide sufficient evidence that:

• One or more persons asserting they resided in a disproportionately 

impacted area for at least 5 of the preceding 10 years did not provide 

sufficient documentation to support that assertion, and/or did not 

provide sufficient documentation that the individual owns and 

controls a sufficient percentage of the dispensing organization 

alone or in conjunction with other proposed principal officers to 

qualify as a Social Equity Applicant.

and/or

• The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support its 

assertion that it is an Illinois resident.

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:127
20

In your response please provide all relevant documents, combined 

in one searchable PDF file, by exhibit to support your assertion(s)

57. The six applicants that received this and similar 

notice, in other words, were informed back in May (months before final 

scores were determined) not only that the Department deemed their proof 

of ownership insufficient, but it listed the various things that were 

missing from the Exhibit J floor plan element, among others, that were 

required to achieve the maximum score. Not only did the Department tell 

these applicants exactly what they needed to do, but it gave the 

applicants 10 days to cure all of the problems without any prejudice 

to their application, almost six months after the original deadline 

for submission.

58. Plaintiffs got no such notification from the 

Department, and no such opportunity – and all despite the statutory 

requirements for both. Instead, the first time Plaintiff JG IL learned 

that the Department had any problem with its Exhibit J was when it 

received a less than perfect score, thereby excluding it from the 

Lottery.

59. The Department cannot deprive any applicant of the 

rights specified in statute, much less selectively enforce the rules 

of this competition. If some applicants were provided notice of exactly 

where and how they fell short of maximum points and an opportunity to 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 20 of 27 PageID #:128
21

cure, then the Department cannot arbitrarily deny other applicants the 

same notice and opportunity to resubmit.

60. The language of the Act is mandatory. Plaintiffs 

“shall” receive the statutorily required notice to “resubmit the 

incomplete information,” prior to being scored or disqualified. 410 

ILCS 705/15-30(b). Here the Department attempted to score Plaintiffs 

without providing them with notice and opportunity to respond, 

despite having provided that very opportunity to other applicants.

61. The way the process has been set up by the Department, 

Plaintiffs are being denied any post announcement hearing to challenge 

the denial of their eligibility to participate in the Lottery. 

62. Absent emergency injunctive relief, by the time 

Plaintiffs have any opportunity for judicial review in this Court, they 

will have no remedy. The State will argue that it is too late to afford 

them a License, because the Lottery will have already occurred, and 

the 75 dispensaries will be under construction. The State will further 

argue that there is no entitlement to damages because once the Lottery 

is over, Plaintiffs could never prove definitively that their lot would 

have been drawn entitling them to a License.

63. This process does not comport with due process.

Where the State is awarding enormously valuable Licenses to 

politically-connected insiders, there has to be be at least some 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 21 of 27 PageID #:129
22

opportunity for meaningful judicial review. Because the process here 

was specifically designed to avoid that opportunity, the Lottery 

should be enjoined until the State provides Plaintiffs (and all others 

who ask) an opportunity to challenge the Department's decision and the 

information with which to do so, as well as the ability to receive a 

chance for a license should the Court deem that appropriate.

Count I - Due Process

64. Plaintiffs reallege all allegations of this Complaint 

as if fully set out herein.

65. By all of the above, Defendants, and each of them, are 

improperly denying Plaintiffs the statutory rights in the application 

process to which they are entitled. Defendants are also denying 

Plaintiffs the right to participate in the lottery despite their 

satisfaction of the objective criteria to determine the participants. 

Defendants refuse to give any process to challenge their actions. As 

a result, Plaintiffs are being deprived of property rights without due 

process of law and lack an effective remedy. Plaintiffs have been

injured as a direct and proximate result.

66. Plaintiffs are entitled to sufficient notice of the 

Department’s findings of a deficiency(ies) and the basis therefore as 

well as an opportunity to respond with correction in accordance with 

the statutory procedures and the procedures afforded other applicants. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 22 of 27 PageID #:130
23

Plaintiffs are also entitled to be notified of the basis, if any, 

underlying the Department’s decision that they are not a Tied 

Applicant, and a fair hearing process to challenge that basis. 

Moreover, these processes must be afforded at a meaningful time when 

relief can still be effectively granted, i.e., while Plaintiffs still 

have the oppostunity to participate in the Lottery.

67. To preserve Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain a remedy and 

this Court’s ability to afford one, the Court should order the 

injunctive relief described below.

Count II – Denial of Access to Courts

68. Plaintiffs reallege all allegations of this Complaint 

as if fully set out herein.

69. Defendants are refusing to afford Plaintiffs a 

procedure at the agency level to challenge its failure to afford them 

the deficiency notice and cure rights and its decision denying them 

Tied Applicant status.

70. Although Defendants have invited all non-eligible 

applicants to file lawsuits to challenge the Department’s conduct and 

decisions, Defendants intend to deprive the court of the ability to 

provide relief for any violation. Specifically, Defendants intend to 

award the Licenses before any court can act.

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 23 of 27 PageID #:131
24

71. By all of the above, Defendants, and each of them, are 

depriving Plaintiffs of access to court. If Plaintiffs prove a 

violation by the Department and entitlement to Tied Applicant status, 

the Department will contend that no Licenses will remain to be awarded

such that this Court has no power to grant relief. Plaintiffs have been 

injured as a direct and proximate result.

72. To remedy at least part of Plaintiffs’ injuries, the 

Court should issue the injunctive relief demanded below.

Count III – Equal Protection

73. Plaintiffs reallege all allegations of this Complaint 

as if fully set out herein.

74. Plaintiffs in this action were treated differently 

than other similarly situated applicants in that those other 

applicants were provided notice of deficiencies and an opportunity to 

respond to cure them, whereas Plaintiffs were not.

75. Had Plaintiffs been given the same notice and permitted

the same opportunity to cure the stated deficiencies, whatever the 

Department is claiming them to be, Plaintiffs would have qualified for 

the Lottery. 

76. Most of the Plaintiffs in this case are members of a 

protected class, namely African American. The Department treated them 

differently than applicants of other races in that it afforded them 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 24 of 27 PageID #:132
25

thorough notice of its findings and an opportunity to address them, 

whereas it afforded neither to Plaintiffs. This disparate treatment 

is unjustified, subject to strict scrutiny, and is the result of 

prohibited animus to favor the other applicants. All of the Plaintiffs 

in this case are also victims of “class of one” equal protection 

violations in that there is no rational basis for the disparate 

treatment.

Count IV – Administrative Review

77. Plaintiffs reallege all allegations of this Complaint 

as if fully set out herein.

78. On or about September 3, 2020, The Department made 

final administrative decisions affecting Plaintiffs’ rights. A copy 

of the decisions are attached hereto.

79. The court should review the decisions because they are 

not in accordance with the law, inter alia, for the reasons explained 

in this Complaint.

80. The Department should have reached the conclusion that 

Plaintiffs met all requirements for the highest score and should have 

been deemed a Tied Applicant as to each of the applications they 

submitted.

81. The Department is requested to file an answer to this 

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:133
26

Complaint consisting of the entire record of the process and grading

resulting in the decision on Plaintiffs’ application and on the 

applications of those deemed Tied Applicants.

82. Plaintiffs have exhausted all available remedies under 

the Administrative Review Law and have no further plain, speedy, 

adequate remedy under the law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Court grant 

the injunctive relief sought herein, as well as any other relief 

available in equity or at law, including but not limited to the Licenses 

under consideration. The injunctive relief sought includes but is not 

limited to a Court order:

A. Directing the Defendants to provide a deficiency notice of the 

same quality and thoroughness afforded the other applicants 

and/or treat the Department’s September 3, 2020 notification 

of non-perfect scores to each of the Plaintiffs as the required 

deficiency notice, and accept and grade Plaintiffs’ revised 

Exhibits. And upon completing that review, if Plaintiffs’ 

scores qualify for placement in the Lottery, Defendants should 

be further ordered to permit any Plaintiffs that do to 

participate. 

Or, alternatively:

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:134
27

B. Temporarily enjoin the Lottery until the Court can adjudicate

the fairness and accuracy of the Department’s process and

findings, including but not limited to whether the process for

selecting the 21 Tied Applicants and excluding Plaintiffs was

inherently flawed, marred by conflict of interest,

erroneously executed, and/or violated the Plaintiffs’ rights.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

/s/Jon Loevy ________ 

Jon Loevy 

Michael Kanovitz 

Loevy and Loevy 

311 North Aberdeen Street 

Chicago, IL 60607 

(312) 243-5900

Case: 1:20-cv-05264 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:135