ORDERDENYINGWRITOFQUOWARRANTODANNIEJONESJRLUCASTORRESSMOKEYJONESLLCMELANIEJONES_05052026

political subdivision of the State of Florida, OFFICER JONATHAN LAMBERT, in his individual capacity, and UNKNOWN OFFICERS, in their individual capacities, Defendants.

_________________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO This Matter came before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Writ of Quo Warranto filed on March 27, 2026. (Doc. 3). After reviewing the Complaint and applicable law, the Court finds as follows:

Plaintiffs’ Complaint includes causes of action for a Quo Warranto Writ or, In the Alternative, Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Judgment § 581.217 Bars State Attorney from Filing Charges Absent FDACS Authorization, (Count I); Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief Section 581.217 Bars Criminal Enforcement Related to the Sale or Possession of Hemp or Hemp-Related Products from Smokey Jones’ Store Absent FDACS Authorization, (Count II); § 1983 Claim for Unreasonable Search & Seizure in Violation of US Constitution, (Count III); and, Conversion, (Count IV). This Order only addresses the application for a Writ of Quo Warranto.
This Court has Jurisdiction, if quo warranto lies. Article V, Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution; Section 26.012, Florida Statutes.
[*2] Case No. 26-CA-003495 Page 2 of 4 A Writ of Quo Warranto is an extraordinary remedy governed in part by Rule 1.630, Fla. R. Civ. P. The complaint for quo warranto must include the facts on which the plaintiff relies for
relief. Rule 1.630(b)(1), Fla. R. Civ. P. The facts should not be conclusory, rather the well pled facts must be ultimate facts to support Plaintiffs’ application for relief. Rule 1.110(b) Fla. R. Civ. P. “If the complaint shows a prima facie case for relief, the court shall issue a writ of quo
warranto.” Rule 1.630(d)(3), Fla. R. Civ. P. A prima facie case for quo warranto is stated when the complaint alleges with sufficient ultimate facts that “(1) [a] Florida official, government agency or other alleged recipient of a power or right that is derived from the State of Florida, (2) has exercised that power or right, (3) but such use is or will be legally improper, (4) and therefore, the court should exercise its discretion to grant this discretionary writ.” See § 1703:1. Elements of the prima facie case for a writ of quo warranto, 21 Fla. Prac., Elements of an Action § 1703:1 (2025-2026 ed.).
Here, the Complaint does not state a prima facie case for relief in quo warranto as the ultimate facts pled to support the allegations are contradictory or internally inconsistent, at best.
Additionally, the facts, as pled, do not lead to an initial determination that the State Attorney here improperly or illegally exercised a power or right or exceeded a grant of authority in bringing criminal charges against Jones for (1) Importation of a Controlled Substance, (2) Possession of Cannabis, and (3) Keeping Public Nuisance Structure for Drug Activity and, against Torres, for (1) Sale of Cannabis, and (2) Possession of Cannabis, regardless of whether FDACS failed to perform a culpability analysis and whether prior approval from FDACS was obtained.1 The Complaint fails to plead ultimate facts to show that Section 581.217, Florida Statutes, is applicable to Plaintiffs Jones and Torres, as individuals, or that it bars the State Attorney from prosecuting [*3] Case No. 26-CA-003495 Page 3 of 4 Plaintiffs Jones and Torres for violations of completely different and distinct criminal statutes.2 Bloodworth, 184 So. 1 (Fla. 1938). Here it appears that other relief may be available by way of pursuing the other Counts pled in the Complaint or by way of filing a motion to dismiss in the underlying criminal matter. See State of Wisconsin v. Syrrakos, 419 Wis. 2d 224 (Wis. Court. Appeals, Oct 29, 2025) (Although ultimately rejecting the Defendant’s argument that the Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed because the State did not receive authorization from the Department as required under the Wisconsin Hemp Statute, the Defendant’s argument was adjudicated via a motion to dismiss in the underlying criminal case.) The Writ of Quo Warranto has always been an extraordinary writ, the issuance of which is a matter of discretion. Richardson v. Sec'y, Florida Agency for Health Care Admin., 395 So. 3d 500, 504 (Fla. 2024) (citations omitted). As the application for relief in quo warranto does not state a prima facie basis for relief as applied to the facts pled, and for the additional reasons stated above, in using this Court’s discretion, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
Plaintiffs’ request for the issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this ______ day of May, 2026.