Jihee Ahn

Jihee is an experienced complex commercial litigator in Harris Sliwoski’s Portland and Los Angeles offices. She represents clients in business, intellectual property, and real estate matters. Having worked extensively in both federal and state courts, Jihee advises her clients from case intake through arbitration and trial.

Facebookv.Duguid TCPALitigation

Breaking News – Facebook v. Duguid: Is this the End of TCPA Litigation?

The Facebook v. Duguid Supreme Court decision is here: “To qualify as an ‘automatic telephone dialing system’ under the TCPA, a device must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator, or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.” Let’s back up.

safe banking act cannabis

The SAFE Banking Act’s Reintroduction in 2021

This week, the SAFE Banking Act’s long-awaited reintroduction finally happened, and by a bipartisan group of over 100 members of the House and 30 members of the Senate (and counting!). The legislation was first introduced in March 2019, and we’ve followed along ever since. This Act has now been passed by the House THREE times,

california cannabis litigation

Cannabis Litigation Common Counts: Alternatives to a Breach of Contract Claim

In almost every litigation webinar we’ve done, and in many of our past posts discussing breach of contract (the general breakdown of this claim is here), we’ve stressed the importance of memorializing agreements in writing to save yourself from potential or protracted litigation down the line. Unfortunately though, we still get quite a few prospective

canna law blog

Cannabis Litigation: How Effective Are Motions to Dismiss?

Last month, I wrote a post on the latest development in the trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Veritas Fine Cannabis (“VFC”) against Veritas Farms. Unfortunately for VFC, Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty had issued a recommended order that the Court grant Veritas Farms’ motion to dismiss – and to dismiss the claims with prejudice (meaning,

making choices cannabis patent

Cannabis Patents: Which Type is Right for You?

It’s been a little while since we’ve talked about patent protection on the blog, but a recent consultation reminded me a primer on the different types of patents potentially available could be beneficial. Here in the United States, there are three broad categories of patents, all of which are governed by the Patent Act (or

California Civil Rights

A Primer on California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA)

This summer, I wrote about a Title III lawsuit that was filed against cannabis company NC3 Systems dba Caliva. As a quick refresher, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires all businesses to remove any obstacle that interferes with a disabled person’s ability to access their products or services online. The plaintiff

Federal Law

Federal Court Dismisses RICO Claims: Remedies Would Violate Federal Law

RICO claims in the cannabis industry have certainly evolved over the years, but the general trend of the Courts dismissing those claims or cases altogether has held fast. In Shulman, et al. v. Kaplan, et al., a case filed in the Central District of California, the plaintiffs – who are involved in the production, marketing, and

Plan A or Plan B doors, concept of choice

Cannabis Litigation: Using Confessed and Stipulated Judgments

Confessed or stipulated judgments are fairly common in the pre-litigation and litigation contexts, and disputes in the cannabis industry are no different. They are slightly different concepts so here’s an overview of both, why they might be the best-case scenario for you, and how to make sure they’re effective (provided a court is willing to

megaphone saying well done

California Cannabis Banking: Financial Institutions Get Some Cover

In a step towards achieving the goals of the SAFE Banking Act, California Governor Gavin Newsom approved Assembly Bill 1525, which importantly provides that banks, credit unions, and other financial servicers to cannabis businesses do not violate California law “solely by virtue of the fact that the person receiving the benefit of any of those