Legal Battle in Sunland Park: Developers Sue City Council & Local Dispensaries Alleging "Anti-Competitive Conspiracy"

SUNLAND PARK, NM – The legal battle over the future of Sunland Park has escalated significantly. The developers behind "Independent Nation," a proposed entertainment and community venue, have filed a massive lawsuit against the city and a coalition of local dispensaries. They allege a "civil conspiracy" was formed to kill their project to protect existing businesses from competition.

The lawsuit, filed on November 21, 2025, in the 3rd Judicial District Court, claims that a "closed market" of established players and city officials colluded to deny licenses for the new venue. The project was set to include a new dispensary called Station X.

The Project: "Independent Nation" and "Station X"

At the heart of the dispute is a massive development that promised to be more than just a retail shop. The Independent Nation project was pitched as a broad "entertainment and community venue" located near the Texas and New Mexico border.

The hub was designed to anchor Station X, a new dispensary operated by a New Mexico cannabis company. However, the developers claim that after following all zoning rules, the City of Sunland Park voted to deny both the cannabis license and the required land-platting approvals earlier this year.

Amit Bijlani, a principal for Independent Nation, issued a statement regarding the city's reversal.

"When a city calls on its community to help rebuild and then changes course mid-stream, it sends a message that progress here can't be counted on," Bijlani said. "And for Sunland Park and the entire Borderplex to thrive, predictability must be part of the promise."

The Core Allegation: "Restraining Competition"

The plaintiffs, Chadcor Holdings NM, LLC (operating as Top Crop Cannabis) and Sunland Parking, LLC, claim they met every legal requirement for approval.

The lawsuit argues that the denial was not an administrative error but the result of improper pressure. The complaint alleges that existing cannabis businesses "coordinated an attack" on the applications. They supposedly pressured the Council to deny the permits specifically to protect their own market share and "restrain competition."

The "Sunland Park Cannabis Coalition"

The lawsuit names the "Sunland Park Cannabis Coalition" as the primary vehicle for this pressure. The plaintiffs allege that while this group acts as an informal trade association, its members collectively worked to shut out the new development.

The lawsuit names many major dispensaries currently operating in the Sunland Park area as a defendant. These "Defendant Competitors" include:

• Apogee Therapeutics
• Cookies Sunland (Animacann)
• Empire Garden (J and J Loan)
• Field of Dreams
• Green Labs Cannabis Company
• Green Paradise
• Hi Life Dispensary
• High Horse
• Obi Wan Cannabis
• Old God's Cannabis
• Sun City Cannabis (Sunshine Essentials)
• Ten 10 Project
• Yerbaviva

City Officials and Personal Attacks

The developers have also sued five elected City Council members: Daisy G. Lira, Mili Sandoval, Maria Burciaga, Alberto Jaramillo, and Susan Gomez.

The complaint alleges these councilors acted "outside their statutory authority" by bowing to pressure from the incumbent dispensaries rather than following zoning laws.

The legal battle also includes accusations of "dirty tactics" outside of the council chambers.

• Defamation: Defendants Pablo Duran and Christian Lira are accused of making false representations to the public to stir up opposition against the new development.
• Vandalism: The lawsuit claims that "Unknown Does" have trespassed on and vandalized the plaintiffs' property. It alleges these acts were committed in furtherance of the anti-competitive conspiracy.

What Is at Stake?

The developers are seeking significant restitution for what they describe as reputational harm, months of construction delays, and financial losses. Under New Mexico’s antitrust statutes (NMSA 1978, § 57-1-3), they are asking for treble damages, meaning three times the actual financial loss they suffered. They are also asking the court to legally enjoin the competitors from taking further anti-competitive actions.

This is a developing story. The Green Border will continue to monitor Case D-307-CV-2025-03136 as it moves through the Third Judicial District Court.