Counterclaims in Seized Hemp Case Should Be Tossed, Hemp Distributor Tells District Court

Shipping company Planet Nine Private Air's counterclaims in a case on the company's alleged gross negligence in handling a hemp shipment should be "dismissed in their entirety," plaintiff We CBD said in a reply brief filed at the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. We CBD argued that many of the claims are conclusory and do not allege any facts and will also be resolved during the litigation of We CBD's claims (We CBD v. Planet Nine Private Air, W.D.N.C. #21-00352)

We CBD's claims concern alleged wrongdoing on Plane Nine's behalf. We CBD had signed an agreement with Planet Nine to export a hemp shipment from Oregon to Switzerland. The flight containing the shipment stopped to refuel in North Carolina, where the hemp aboard was then seized by CBP. Planet Nine emailed the customs agency with a request for a chartered flight that was heading to Switzerland but failed to list any cargo aboard the flight. CBP then conducted a border search and found 93 duffel or trash bags filled with hemp, marijuana or both from We CBD. Plane Nine has already moved to dismiss the case (see 2109030056).

The shipping company then filed counterclaims against We CBD. In all, Planet Nine made five counterclaims to We CBD's lawsuit -- two alleging breach of contract and three making fraud claims. One of the two contract claims claimed that We CBD failed to secure the necessary travel documents for the shipment. However, Planet Nine never said which documents the company failed to produce, thereby nixing this claim, the brief said.

Among the fraud claims, Planet Fraud tried to pin any wrongdoing committed by independent third-party broker Ed Clarke on We CBD. The plaintiff responded that Clarke does not work for it and any of the agent's wrongdoing cannot be pinned on the company. "Clark did not sign the purported agreement between Planet Nine and Plaintiffs, and Planet Nine alleges no other facts to support its conclusion that Clark had the requisite authority to act as Plaintiffs’ agent," the brief said. "Even more detrimental: Planet Nine alleges that its agency theory relies on Clark’s representations about his authority, not Plaintiffs."

We CBD also said that Planet Nine's claim for relief based on the fact that the Montreal Convention governs the claims in the lawsuit is superfluous. "Planet Nine bases its Declaratory Judgment claim on underlying facts that are duplicative of issues that must be resolved throughout the course of this litigation, such as: the validity of the agreement, the terms of the agreement, the scope of the purported agreement with regard to the Montreal Convention (and the scope of the purported agreement with regard to both Plaintiffs and Planet Nine’s claims), as well as whether Plaintiffs’ damages (which are not covered by the Montreal Convention) are within the scope of the Montreal Convention," the brief said.