In the case of the Hempworx lawsuit against defendant PLR Environmental Services, the parties agreed to enter into binding arbitration under the National Certification Agreement. In this agreement, the plaintiff was able to obtain relief from their claim for both immediate and future compensation damages. The case was resolved by the entry of an arbitrator after the parties agreed that this would be a fair resolution. Many issues were resolved at the arbitration, including:
Hempworx’s Lawsuit
First, it was determined that Hempworx had been properly served with the complaint in this case. Hempworx had not been properly served as the PLR had alleged that the defendants willfully violated the plaintiff’s rights. Therefore, this was ruled out of subject because Hempworx failed to file the complaint within the thirty-day notice period. The case then moved to the mediation process. During this time frame, it was discovered that Hempworx could not successfully defend their lawsuit, and therefore this motion to mediation was denied.
- Second, it was determined that Hempworx was not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff’s son during a negligent home renovation.
The trial court had found that the home renovation was not negligent and therefore was not held liable for the injuries sustained by the son. The trial court found that the local storage facility was improperly maintaining its inventory because it failed to maintain adequate records and there was no evidence tying the inventory to any injuries or improper activity. The trial court found that this was indeed a negligence issue and that Hempworx could not make any such claim because the time series values of the Hempworx invoice and prom Prometheus had not been altered at any point during the three-year time frame. This conclusion was also supported by witness testimony from Mr. Robert Dittman, the local store owner, who stated that he had never seen the inventory before the incident and that the numbers on the books of the warehouse generally did not change during that time frame.
- Based on this testimony, it was found that there was no evidence tying the inventory to the incident and that there was no evidence that the home renovation caused any damage whatsoever to the inventory in question.
Therefore, Hempworx was not able to make any such claim in its motion to mitigate. Therefore, on its own, there is no evidence that the negligent activities of the defendants caused any damages to the warehouses, or caused any injuries to the plaintiffs. Therefore, Hempworx can’t recover any damages. However, this is where the potential for liability comes in for the defendant Hempworx.
- That is to say, that they are not an insurance company that insures against the storage, movement, and retention of goods.
This is a distinction that the US Courts have made, on the one hand, because the US Congress has explicitly stated that they can only be held liable for the transportation and receipt of goods, but not for their storage or movement. This distinction helps ensure that if there was evidence that the warehouse in question was improperly maintaining its warehouse, or storing goods improperly, that evidence could not be introduced into any civil action brought against Hempworx.
- As an alternative, Hempworx argues that their liability is limited to the number of times that they contractually agreed to store warehousing capacity (which is also an internal matter) and the date by which they return goods to the client libraries.
This distinction is important to understand because it provides a way in which to challenge the claim that Hempworx has adopted an inconsistent or capricious interpretation of the relevant contractual and performance materials. To begin, it is important to remember that when filing a complaint in a civil lawsuit, it is always possible that you will lose. To increase your chances of success in a motion to dismiss, you must demonstrate a probability that the interpretation of the relevant materials by the parties was wrong. This requirement is satisfied by demonstrating that there is some confusion among the parties and that this confusion harmed the likelihood of the success of the complaint. In most cases, it is easy to establish that the parties’ interpretations of the relevant documents are incorrect because the drafting errors are easy to detect.
In this case, it is easy to see how Hempworx could reasonably argue that the contractual and performance agreements outlined in the Workshops are unambiguous, as described in the pre-litigation agreement. Therefore, it is not likely that the Workshops exceeded their client library. Because of the relative ease with which this argument can be advanced in a court of law, the parties involved in the Workshops must consider counsel before agreeing to any binding agreement regarding warehousing. It is important to note that once a suit has been filed in state court, counsel retained by the defendants is required to investigate whether or not the contractual and performance agreements outlined in the Workshops constitute a valid legal claim.
