trichrome v essex junction

Termont 	Superior 	Court
Filed 	09/03/26
Chittenden 	Unit
VERMONT 	SUPERIOR 	COURT
Chittenden 	Unit
175 	Main 	Street
Burlington 	VT 	05401
802-863-3467
.vermontjudiciary.org
CIVIL 	DIVISION
Case 	No. 	26-CV-03449
Trichome 	VT 	LLC,
Plaintiff
DECISION 	ON 	MOTION
City 	of Essex 	Junction 	and 	Essex 	Junction
Local 	Cannabis 	Control 	Commission,
Defendants
RULING 	ON 	MOTION 	TO 	DISMISS
This 	case 	concerns 	a 	cannabis 	cultivation 	business 	operating 	in 	a 	residential 	area 	of Essex
Junction. 	Jason 	Struthers 	owns 	the 	property 	where 	Trichome 	VT 	LLC 	("Trichome"') 	is 	located.
In 	a 	letter 	dated 	November 	24, 	2025, 	the 	Vermont 	Cannabis 	Control Board 	informed 	Struthers
that 	he 	was 	required 	to 	"halt 	all 	licensed 	cultivation 	activities" 	due 	to 	the 	revocation 	by 	the 	Essex
Junction 	Local 	Cannabis 	Control 	Commission 	("LCCC") 	of the 	license 	that 	had 	been 	granted 	to
Trichome. 	On 	December 	5, 	2025, 	Trichome 	appealed 	that 	decision 	to 	this 	Court 	pursuant 	to
Rule 	74 	of the 	Vermont 	Rules 	of Civil 	Procedure. 	On 	March 	31, 	2026, 	the 	Court 	granted 	the
City 	of Essex 	Junction's 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	the 	appeal, 	concluding 	that 	it 	lacked 	subject 	matter
jurisdiction 	under 	Rule 	74. 	See 	Trichome 	VT LLC 	y. 	Essex 	Junction 	Local 	Cannabis 	Control
Comm 	'n, 	Docket 	No. 	25-CV-05477, 	2026 	WL 	1050356, 	at 	*1 	(Vt. 	Super. 	Ct. 	Mar. 	31, 	2026).
On 	June 	12, 	2026, 	Trichome filed 	the 	instant 	action, 	again 	seeking 	review 	of the 	LCCC's
November 	2025 	decision 	revoking 	its 	municipal 	cannabis 	license, 	relying 	on 	Rule 	75 	as 	the 	basis
for 	the 	appeal. 	Pursuant 	to 	Rule 	12(b)(6), 	the 	City 	moves 	to 	dismiss 	this 	appeal, 	asserting 	it 	is
time-barred. 	The 	City 	is 	represented 	by 	Claudine 	C. 	Safar, 	Esq., 	and 	Trichome 	appears 	through
Mr. 	Struthers, 	who 	is 	not 	a 	licensed 	attorney, 	but 	was 	provisionally 	granted 	permission 	to
represent 	the 	business 	in 	this 	action. 	For 	the 	reasons 	discussed 	below, 	the 	City's 	motion 	to
dismiss 	is 	GRANTED.
Discussion
In 	deciding 	a 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	pursuant 	to 	Rule 	12(b)(6), 	the 	court 	considers 	whether 	"it
appears 	beyond 	doubt 	that 	there 	exist 	no 	facts 	or 	circumstances 	that 	would 	entitle 	the 	plaintiff to
relief." 	Davis 	Am. 	Legion, 	Dep't 	of 	Vt., 	2014 	VT 	134, 	§ 	12, 198 	Vt. 	204 	(quoting 	Alger 	v.
Dep't 	ofLabor 	& 	Indus., 	2006 	VT 	115, 	¥ 	12, 	181 	Vt. 	309). 	"The 	purpose 	of a 	motion 	to 	dismiss
is 	to 	test 	the 	law 	of the 	claim, 	not 	the 	facts 	which 	support 	it." 	Powers 	v. 	Office 	of Child 	Support,
173 	Vt. 	390, 395, 	795 	A.2d 	1259, 	1263 	(2002). 	The 	time 	limitations 	for 	filing 	a 	Rule 	75 	action
are 	similar 	to 	a 	statute 	of 	limitations. 	Herrera 	v. 	Union 	No. 	39 	Sch. 	Dist., 	2006 	VT 	83, 	§ 	19, 	181

2
Vt. 198 (noting that “Rule 75’s time limitations are not jurisdictional,” but rather, like the statute
of limitations, are “avoidance defenses [that] must be pled as affirmative defenses, or else they
are waived” (quotation and citation omitted)). “Since averments of time and place are material
for testing the sufficiency of a complaint, defenses based on a failure to comply with the
applicable statute of limitations are properly raised in a motion to dismiss.” Bethel v. Mount
Anthony Union High Sch. Dist., 173 Vt. 633, 634, 795 A.2d 1215, 1217 (2002) (mem.) (citing
Fortier v. Byrnes, 165 Vt. 189, 193, 678 A.2d 890, 892 (1996)).
Municipal decisions that are not subject to review under Rule 74 may be reviewed
pursuant to Rule 75. However, a complaint seeking review of a municipal decision “must be
filed within 30 days after notice of any action . . . of which review is sought unless the court
enlarges the time in accordance with Rule 6(b).” V.R.C.P. 75(c). Here, Trichome’s complaint
alleges that it was notified of LCCC’s decision to cease its cannabis cultivation activities on
November 24, 2025. However, Trichome failed to file its Rule 75 appeal within 30 days of the
decision, nor has it requested an extension of time to file under Rule 6(b). Accordingly,
Trichome’s appeal is time-barred.
Trichome opposes the motion to dismiss, arguing that the 30-day clock should not start
running until May 18, 2026, when the Vermont Cannabis Control Board (“CCB”) refused its
petition for review that was filed pursuant to 7 V.S.A. § 847. According to Trichome, its Rule
75 appeal was not ripe until after it sought review from, and failed to obtain relief by, the
Environmental Division, the Civil Division (pursuant to Rule 74), and the Vermont Cannabis
Control Board (“CCB”). Trichome contends that “[o]nly when the CCB refused Petitioner’s
§ 847 petition on May 18, 2026, did it become clear, for the first time, that no other remedy
remained.” Opp. at 1. This argument is unavailing.
Trichome cites no authority for the proposition that the availability of Rule 75 relief
requires a petitioner to first exhaust other procedural avenues or depends on the decisions of
other courts or agencies, nor has the Court found any. On the contrary, the question of whether
review of a governmental action is available under Rule 75 is governed by statute and the relief
generally available at common law. See, e.g., Garbitelli v. Town of Brookfield, 2011 VT 122,
¶ 5, 191 Vt. 76 (“Rule 74 applies when a statute specifically provides for review. Where
legislation is silent as to review, an appeal may be taken under Rule 75.” (citation omitted));
Rheaume v. Pallito, 2011 VT 72, ¶ 5, 190 Vt. 245 (because no statute provided for review of
decision at issue, question was whether it fell “within the class of decisions appealable at
common law under one of the extraordinary writs,” i.e., “proceedings in the nature of certiorari,
mandamus, or prohibition” (quoting V.R.C.P. 75 – Reporter’s Notes)). Thus, Trichome’s lack of
success in other proceedings before the Environmental Division and the CCB, or before this
Court, has no bearing on the availability of review under Rule 75 or the running of the 30-day
window for appeal. Trichome’s petition pursuant to Rule 75 was ripe immediately following
notice of the LCCC’s decision on November 24, 2025. It is now too late to seek such review.
Accordingly, because Trichome failed to file its Rule 75 complaint within the requisite
30-day period set forth in the rule, its petition must be dismissed.

3
Order
For the foregoing reasons, the City of Essex Junction’s Motion to Dismiss (Mot. #4) is
GRANTED.
Electronically signed on September 3, 2026 at 1:07 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d).
________________________________
Megan J. Shafritz
Superior Court Judge