A marijuana company filed a lawsuit against the Broomfield clerk and 16 others over duplicated applications for cannabis businesses. The suit alleges that the applicants were not given fair consideration because they did not receive an answer from the board of commissioners until after all those who applied had been rejected.

The colorado daily is reporting that a marijuana company has filed a lawsuit against the Broomfield clerk and 16 others over duplicated applications.


After Broomfield refused to reject organizations that submitted numerous applications, an applicant for one of Broomfield’s three lottery-based marijuana licenses filed a lawsuit Monday against the Broomfield city and county clerk and 16 other candidates.

The lawsuit was filed by Centroid Holdings, Inc., which operates as Terrapin Care Station and applied for one of Broomfield’s licenses. Terrapin Communications Director Peter Marcus said the lawsuit was filed “to protect the citizens of Broomfield from a handful of entities failing to play by the rules.”

Terrapin’s attorneys wrote to Broomfield City and County Attorney Nancy Rodgers and City and County Clerk Erika Delaney Lew on Sept. 14 to explain how “Ineligible Applicants were breaking the law, attempting to undermine the fairness of proceedings, and depriving Plaintiff of a fair opportunity to receive a license,” according to the suit. Broomfield is expected to “promptly rectify the problems… and exclude the guilty organizations from the process,” according to the company’s attorneys.

The letter adds, “We plan to take every action required to protect our client from the irreparable damage that it would incur if Broomfield does not act quickly.”

The three first licenses have 26 applications, and according to the Broomfield Municipal Code, “no owner of any company seeking for a license or in possession of a license within the city may apply for, or be an owner of, any other business entity applying for another license within the city.”

However, data indicate that there are numerous overlaps between company names, applicant surnames, suggested locations, and business strategies across the 26 applications.

Yuma BRMT LLC, Yuma BRKM LLC, Yuma BRIT LLC, and Yuma BRAT LLC are all unregistered trade names, despite the fact that all four applications mention the same intended company address of 1480 West First Ave. According to records, three of the four registered agents mentioned in conjunction with the Yuma applications had the same last name. According to the complaint, the four applications contain the identical plans for different parts of the company, as well as the same papers and responses to seven of the application’s questions.

IgadI, a cannabis business based in Tabernash with seven outlets throughout the state, is listed as the registered trade name by five applicants. While all five applications have the same registered trade name, the company applicant’s identities are different, such as PCA, Ltd. and JPO, Ltd. According to records, all five applications have the same postal address and main contact person. According to the complaint, the five applications all offer the same owners, lease, and floor layout, as well as the identical wording in their cover letters and answers to the business plans.

According to the complaint, applicants Herbert Bruce Wetzel, Nathan Wetzel, Mark Busch, Mike Weinberger, and Joshua Kenneth Davis all provided the identical answers to at least 10 of the questions and provided the same plans for various parts of the company. In addition, four of the five people use the email domain name “unityrd.com,” and four of the five mention Unity Road in their cover letters.

Applicants LP Management Company LLC and Silverpeak Corp offer almost similar delivery plans, with the exception of the applicant name, and many aspects of the two applicants’ stated plans are nearly identical.

The remaining 16 defendants in the complaint include Yuma entities, Igadi entities, Unity applications, LP Management Company LLC, and Silverpeak Corp. According to the complaint, each applicant “undeniably submits their applications on behalf of and for the benefit of one underlying organization in violation of the Broomfield Municipal Code.”

The candidates each provided a suggested site for their company in Broomfield as part of their application. Thirteen of the 26 applications mention 11640 Teller St., while four list 1480 West First Ave. One application each lists 1995 West Midway Blvd., 1690 Midway Blvd., 300 Alter St., 7110 West 117th Ave. Unit A2, 195 Commerce St., 11625 Reed Court, and 4181 West 120th Ave. At bit.ly/proposedmap, you may see a map of the proposed sites.

Despite a legal firm raising concerns with the city and county last week, authorities informed the Enterprise that the applications “technically satisfy the wording of the code since they have been filed by distinct companies controlled by different people.”

Broomfield’s Senior City Attorney Courtney Thiemann responded to Terrapin’s letter on Sept. 20, saying the city is “aware of the concern,” but “does not agree that this concern constitutes grounds for the City and County Clerk to change the status of any applications that were accepted by the office as complete, and their status at this stage will not be changed.”

As a result of the city’s response, the lawsuit requests that the court “enters an order: Holding that Ms. Lew’s decision to allow the Ineligible Applicants to proceed in the lottery process is arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional, and contrary to law; Entering injunctive relief pursuant to C.R.C.P. 65 such that Ms. Lew is restrained from issuing licenses to applicants who have violated the Broomfian

Carolyn Romero, Broomfield’s chief communications officer, said the city had not yet been served with the lawsuit as of Tuesday afternoon and would not comment until it had been served and examined.

The candidates would be selected via a lottery method, according to the Broomfield City Council, who framed the marijuana rules ahead of the ban on sales ending. A selection committee will evaluate each application, and the selection committee will decide “if the applications satisfy merit, and those that do will join the lottery process,” according to city and county law.

According to the complaint, a business with five applications in the running is more likely to be chosen at random than one single application.

On Friday, September 24, 2021, the building at 11640 Teller Street in Broomfield is visible. Thirteen of the 26 marijuana applicants in Broomfield want to open a shop here. 

On Oct. 11, the Selection Committee is expected to submit a final report of eligible candidates to the City Clerk, and a public, random lottery will be conducted in the City Council Chambers, 1 DesCombes Drive, on Oct. 21 at 4 p.m. The first three businesses’ opening dates will be determined by the nature of the company, as well as licensing and inspection requirements. The Council eventually decided to grant three licenses at initially, with the option of adding two more licenses 12 months after the first three are awarded.

You May Also Like

Cannabis Crossing the U.S. Southern Border Is More Likely to Be From California Into Mexico

California is a hub for the production of cannabis in the United…

Authorities Find Illegal Marijuana Grow Operation at Historic Castle in the UK

The Castle Donington in Leicestershire, UK was the venue for the first…

Biden Admin Reverses Course, Fires Employees Over Marijuana Use

The Biden Administration has reversed a policy that allowed employees to use…

Pico Rivera reconsiders allowing marijuana businesses

Over the past few weeks, the debate about whether marijuana businesses will…