CJ-2020-1025 - High Five Media Group, LLC v. MCV Enterprises LLC d/b/a CBD Plus USA

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: a media company is suing two cannabis-adjacent businesses for over $400,000 because, allegedly, they got a whole lot of ads, didn’t pay for them, and then just… kept using the work anyway. It’s like ordering a full-course meal at a fancy restaurant, eating every bite, and then bolting out the back door before the check arrives—except this bill comes with legal interest, attorney fees, and the quiet fury of a marketing firm that got played.

So who are these players in Oklahoma’s version of Advertising Wars: The High Five Chronicles? On one side, we’ve got High Five Media Group, LLC—a full-service marketing and media company based in Edmond, Oklahoma. These folks don’t just make pretty graphics; they build brands, run ad campaigns, and likely spend their days debating font choices with the intensity of a courtroom drama. They’re represented by A. Ainslie Stanford II, a lawyer whose name sounds like a character from a 1920s detective novel. On the other side? Two cannabis-adjacent businesses: MCV Enterprises LLC, doing business as CBD Plus USA, and Vice Capital Extraction, LLC, operating as Lotus Gold Dispensary. Yes, “Vice Capital Extraction” is a real business name. No, we’re not making that up. It sounds less like a dispensary and more like a hedge fund that specializes in morally questionable acquisitions.

Now, let’s rewind to October 2018, when dreams were high and contracts were signed. High Five Media and CBD Plus entered into what they called the October 2018 Marketing Agreement—a fancy way of saying, “We’ll make you look cool, you pay us.” Under this deal, High Five promised to provide advertising services and products (think social media campaigns, branding, maybe even a jingle nobody asked for but now can’t unhear). In return, CBD Plus promised the most important thing in any business relationship: cold, hard cash. But according to the filing, CBD Plus didn’t hold up their end. They allegedly failed to pay what they owed. And not just a little. We’re talking damages “in excess of $75,000.” Ouch.

But here’s where it gets extra. Instead of just suing immediately, High Five tried to be the bigger brand. In July 2019, they sat down (probably with lawyers in tow) and hammered out a Termination Agreement—a contract to end a contract, which already sounds like the plot of a Sopranos episode. The idea? CBD Plus would pay off its debt according to a strict schedule, execute a new agreement (the “Outdoor Agreement,” which we’ll get to), and cough up a $90,000 separation fee. In exchange, High Five would officially terminate the old contract and maybe, just maybe, stop sending increasingly passive-aggressive invoices.

Spoiler alert: CBD Plus didn’t do any of that.

They didn’t pay the balance. They didn’t sign the Outdoor Agreement. And they definitely didn’t write a $90,000 check with a note that says “Sorry we ghosted you.” So now, High Five claims, not only did they lose money, but their reputation took a hit too—vendors started treating them like a risk, possibly because word got around that they couldn’t collect payments. In business, trust is currency. And CBD Plus apparently spent High Five’s without permission.

But wait—there’s more! In August 2019, despite the mess from the previous agreements, High Five and CBD Plus (plus Lotus Gold this time) signed yet another contract: the August 2019 Outdoor Agreement. This one involved outdoor advertising—think billboards, bus wraps, that kind of thing. Again, High Five delivered the goods. Again, CBD Plus allegedly stiffed them. Another $75,000 in claimed damages. At this point, you have to wonder: is CBD Plus bad at money, or just really good at avoiding it?

And here’s the kicker: Lotus Gold, the dispensary that wasn’t even part of the original October 2018 deal, is now being sued too. Why? Because High Five says they used the advertising work—benefited from it, profited from it—and never paid a dime. That’s where the unjust enrichment claim comes in. In plain English: “You got the benefit, you didn’t pay, and that’s not fair.” It’s like if your neighbor hires a landscaper to redo their yard, the landscaper accidentally also trims your hedges, and then you start bragging about your “new look” at block parties. You didn’t hire them, but you still got the glow-up. High Five wants to make sure Lotus Gold doesn’t get a free rebrand.

So what does High Five want? A judgment for over $400,000—yes, four hundred grand—plus interest, attorney fees, and costs. Is that a lot? For unpaid advertising work, it’s not insane, but it’s not chump change either. For context, $400,000 could buy you a pretty nice house in Oklahoma, or fund a very aggressive billboard campaign across three states. But when you’re talking about multiple contracts, repeated breaches, and reputational harm, the math starts to add up. Especially when you factor in that High Five claims lost business opportunities because vendors stopped trusting them after CBD Plus didn’t pay.

Now, here’s our take: the most absurd part of this whole saga isn’t the money, or the three separate contracts, or even the fact that someone named their company “Vice Capital Extraction.” It’s the sheer audacity of signing a Termination Agreement—a document literally designed to clean up a mess—and then not following through on that either. It’s like agreeing to a divorce settlement and then refusing to sign the papers, keep the dog, and start using your ex’s Netflix password again. There’s a special level of disrespect in creating more legal drama to resolve legal drama.

We’re also side-eyeing the timeline. October 2018 to August 2019 is ten months of contracts, breaches, attempted fixes, and new contracts. That’s not a business relationship—that’s a toxic workplace romance with invoices. At some point, High Five had to ask: “Are we a marketing firm, or are we a collection agency with a design team?”

Do we think High Five will win? We’re entertainers, not lawyers—but if they’ve got proof of the work done, the contracts signed, and the payments never made, they’ve got a strong case. And if Lotus Gold is truly using their ads without permission? That’s the kind of detail that makes a judge’s eyebrow twitch in disapproval.

Bottom line: this isn’t just about unpaid bills. It’s about professional respect, business integrity, and the unspoken rule that you don’t use someone’s labor and then pretend it never happened. In the wild world of Oklahoma’s cannabis-adjacent commerce, maybe the real high was the contracts we broke along the way.

Case Overview

$400,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

A. Ainslie Stanford II

Crooks Stanford & Shoop, PLLC

Relief Sought

$400,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

High Five Media Group, LLC business
Rep: A. Ainslie Stanford II

Defendants

MCV Enterprises LLC d/b/a CBD Plus USA business
Vice Capital Extraction, LLC d/b/a Lotus Gold Dispensary business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract-The October 2018 Marketing Agreement	Plaintiff claims Defendant failed to pay for advertising services and products
2	Breach of Contract-The July 2019 Termination Agreement	Plaintiff claims Defendant failed to pay for damages and failed to execute agreement
3	Breach of Contract-The August 2019 Outdoor Agreement	Plaintiff claims Defendant failed to pay for advertising services and products
4	Unjust Enrichment against CBD Plus and Lotus Gold	Plaintiff claims Defendants were unjustly enriched by Plaintiff's work

Petition Text

1,049 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA HIGH FIVE MEDIA GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. MCV ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a CBD PLUS USA and VICE CAPITAL EXTRACTION, LLC d/b/a LOTUS GOLD DISPENSARY, Defendants. PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff, High Five Media Group, LLC (hereinafter "High Five" or "Plaintiff"), and for its Petition against Defendant MCV Enterprises LLC, doing business as CBD Plus USA ("CBD Plus") and Defendant Vice Capital Extraction, LLC d/b/a Lotus Gold Dispensary ("Lotus Gold") and alleges and states as follows: 1. Plaintiff is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma in good standing. 2. Defendant CBD Plus is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma in good standing. 3. Defendant Lotus Gold is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma in good standing. 4. Plaintiff and Defendant CBD Plus entered into multiple agreements in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 5. Plaintiff provided valuable goods and services to Defendant CBD Plus and Defendant Lotus Gold. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Contract-The October 2018 Marketing Agreement 7. Plaintiff re-alleges each and every allegation contained above fully as though set forth herein. 8. Defendant CBD Plus entered into an agreement with Plaintiff on or about October 12, 2018. ("October 2018 Marketing Agreement") 9. Under the terms of the October 2018 Marketing Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to provide advertising services and products to CBD Plus. In return, CBD Plus agreed to pay all money owed to Plaintiff as a result of the Contract. 10. CBD Plus failed and refused to pay Plaintiff all money owed as result of the October 2018 Marketing Agreement. 11. In addition, based on CBD Plus's failure to fully perform under the terms of the October 2018 Marketing Agreement, Plaintiff suffered lost profit damages arising out of one or more vendors refusal to do business with Plaintiff on the same or similar terms that had been agreed to before CBD Plus' breach. 12. CBD Plus breached the October 2018 Marketing Agreement and has damaged Plaintiff in an amount in excess of $75,000.00. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Contract-The July 2019 Termination Agreement 13. Plaintiff re-alleges each and every allegation contained above fully as though set forth herein. 14. Based on Defendant CBD Plus’ breaches of the October 2018 Marketing Agreement, Plaintiff and CBD Plus entered into an agreement on or about July 31, 2019 to address CBD Plus’ breaches, and pay back Plaintiff for the damages it caused to Plaintiff. (“July 2019 Termination Agreement”). This agreement was labeled a Termination Agreement, as the intent of it, in part, was to terminate the July 2019 Termination Agreement, but only after CBD Plus satisfied certain specified conditions articulated in the July 2019 Termination Agreement. 15. Under the terms of the July 2019 Termination Agreement, the October 2018 Marketing Agreement would not terminate until CBD Plus: a) paid in full the Outstanding Balance in accordance with the payoff schedule described on Exhibit A [to the July 2019 Termination Agreement]; b) fully executed the Outdoor Agreement¹; and c) paid in full a separation fee of $90,000.00. 16. CBD Plus failed and refused to pay Plaintiff the Outstanding Balance in accordance with the payoff schedule described on Exhibit A to the July 2019 Termination Agreement. 17. CBD Plus failed and refused to fully execute the Outdoor Agreement. 18. In addition, based on CBD Plus’s failure to fully perform under the terms of the Termination Agreement, Plaintiff suffered lost profit damages arising out of one or more vendors refusal to do business with Plaintiff on the same or similar terms that had been agreed to before CBD Plus’ breach. 19. Based on the foregoing, CBD Plus breached the July 2019 Termination Agreement and damaged Plaintiff in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 plus interest, fees and costs. ¹ Outdoor Agreement discussed further below in separate cause of action THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Contract-The August 2019 Outdoor Agreement 20. Plaintiff re-alleges each and every allegation contained above fully as though set forth herein. 21. Defendant CBD Plus entered into an agreement with Plaintiff on or about August 26, 2019. ("August 2019 Outdoor Agreement") 22. Under the terms of the August 2019 Outdoor Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to provide advertising services and products to CBD Plus and Lotus Gold. In return, CBD Plus agreed to pay all money owed to Plaintiff as a result of the Contract. 23. CBD Plus failed and refused to pay Plaintiff all money owed as result of the August 2019 Outdoor Agreement. 24. In addition, based on CBD Plus's failure to fully perform under the terms of the August 2019 Outdoor Agreement, Plaintiff suffered lost profit damages arising out of one or more vendors refusal to do business with Plaintiff on the same or similar terms that had been agreed to before CBD Plus' breach. 25. Based on the foregoing, CBD Plus breached the August 2019 Outdoor Agreement and has damaged Plaintiff in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 plus interest, fees and costs. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unjust Enrichment against CBD Plus and Lotus Gold 26. Plaintiff re-alleges each and every allegation contained above fully as though set forth herein. 27. Plaintiff conferred substantial benefits to CBD Plus and Lotus Gold through marketing goods and services provided to CBD Plus and Lotus Gold, and as such Plaintiff's work to enabled CBD Plus and Lotus Gold to enjoy substantial commercial benefits. 28. Lotus Gold has accepted, used and continues to use Plaintiff's work. 29. In providing the goods and services to Lotus Gold and CBD Plus, Plaintiff expected to be compensated. 30. Lotus Gold and CBD Plus would be unjustly enriched if they are permitted to retain the benefits that Plaintiff's goods and services conferred to Lotus Gold and CBD Plus without fully compensating Plaintiff. 31. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover from Lotus Gold and CBD Plus for the reasonable value of the benefits conferred by Plaintiff to Lotus Gold and CBD Plus in an amount in excess of $75,000, plus interest, fees and costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff High Five Media Group, LLC requests judgment be entered against Defendants CBD Plus and Lotus Gold, as defined herein and in favor of High Five Media Group, LLC, in an amount in excess of $400,000.00, in addition to pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney fees, costs and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, A. AINSLIE STANFORD II, OBA No. 18843 CROOKS STANFORD & SHOOP, PLLC 171 Stonebridge Boulevard Edmond, OK 73013 Telephone: (405) 285-8588 E-mail: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF