AK Industrial Hemp Association, Inc. et al v. Alaska Department of Natural Resources et al

Filing 8

ORDER Denying the Motion to Expedite at Docket 5 filed by AK Industrial Hemp Association, Inc., ALASKA EDIBLES LLC, McDonough Corp Inc., Primo Farms North LLC, GD Sales LLC. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 11/7/2023. (CFR, CHAMBERS STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

AK INDUSTRIAL HEMP ASSOCIATION,
INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, et al.,

Case No. 3:23-cv-00253-SLG

Defendants.
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Before the Court at Docket 5 is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Consideration
of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or in the Alternative
Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the enforcement of regulations
recently adopted by the Division of Agriculture of the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources regarding the regulation of hemp products for human and animal
consumption. Plaintiffs initiated this action on November 2, 2023; to date, they
have not filed proof that Defendants have been served with their complaint, a
summons, motions and other filings in accordance with Rule 4, Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Expedited consideration of the motion for preliminary injunctive relief is

denied, as Plaintiffs have not clearly demonstrated that they will suffer irreparable
injury if preliminary injunctive relief is not immediately granted before the State
Defendants are accorded an opportunity to be heard on the motion for preliminary
injunctive relief. See Local Civil Rule 7.3(a).1

Nor have Plaintiffs shown that they

will be irreparably harmed in the next few weeks unless the State is ordered to
immediately respond to Plaintiffs’ filings. Rather, the Court will apply the standard
briefing schedule, such that the State’s response to the motion for preliminary
injunctive relief will be due two weeks after State Defendants have been served in
accordance with Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Supreme Court in Winter characterized “injunctive relief as an
extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the
plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”2 Thus, a plaintiff “must demonstrate that in the
absence of a preliminary injunction, ‘the [plaintiff] is likely to suffer irreparable harm
before a decision on the merits can be rendered.’” 3 “Speculative injury does not
constitute irreparable injury . . . . [A] plaintiff must demonstrate immediate

Nor does Plaintiffs’ expedited motion explain any efforts to resolve this matter between the
parties in the several weeks following the regulations’ enactment in late September and their
effective date of November 3, 2023. Cf. Local Civil Rule 7.3(a)(1)(A).
1

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520
U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)).
2

Id. (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.1
(2d ed. 1995)).
3

Case No. 3:23-cv-00253-SLG, AK Hemp Industrial Assoc., Inc., et al. v. AK DNR, et al.
Order re Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order or in the Alternative Preliminary Injunction
Page 2 of 4

threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.” 4 Moreover,
“[t]here must be a ‘sufficient causal connection’ between the alleged irreparable
harm and the activity to be enjoined,” such as a “showing that ‘the requested
injunction would forestall’ the irreparable harm.”5
Injunctive relief is an equitable remedy, and “[t]he essence of equity
jurisdiction is the power of the court to fashion a remedy depending upon the
necessities of the particular case.”6
Plaintiffs’ affidavits filed in support of their motion simply state that as hemp
distributors, they are “uncertain and confused about the legal implications and
consequences of continuing to possess and sell [hemp] inventory” under the new
regulations.7 Counsel for plaintiffs assert that “Alaska hemp business owners
could possibly be facing criminal charges.”8 But Plaintiffs have not provided any
evidence that law enforcement authorities have “communicated a specific warning

Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (emphasis omitted)
(first citing Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Ct. of State of Cal., 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir.
1984); and then citing L.A. Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1201
(9th Cir. 1980)).
4

Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 886 F.3d 803, 819 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 976, 981–82 (9th Cir. 2011)).
5

Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v.
Odessa Union Warehouse Co-op, 833 F.2d 172, 175 (9th Cir. 1987)).
6

7

See, e.g., Docket 4-1 at paragraph 6.

8

Docket 5 at 7.

Case No. 3:23-cv-00253-SLG, AK Hemp Industrial Assoc., Inc., et al. v. AK DNR, et al.
Order re Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order or in the Alternative Preliminary Injunction
Page 3 of 4

or threat to initiate proceedings” to Plaintiffs in the immediate future.9

In short,

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm to them before
the State Defendants have the opportunity to be heard on the motion for
preliminary injunctive relief.
In light of the foregoing, the motion for expedited consideration at Docket 5
is DENIED.
DATED this 7th day of November, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Tingley v. Ferguson, 47 F.4th 1055, 1067 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Thomas v. Anchorage Equal
Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)).
9

Case No. 3:23-cv-00253-SLG, AK Hemp Industrial Assoc., Inc., et al. v. AK DNR, et al.
Order re Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order or in the Alternative Preliminary Injunction
Page 4 of 4