Nick Moser’s Role in the Hemp Quarters 605 Case

April 24, 2026

South Dakota’s 2024 hemp fight produced one notable federal case: Hemp Quarters 605 LLC v. Noem, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota on June 13, 2024. The plaintiff, Hemp Quarters 605 LLC, challenged House Bill 1125, South Dakota’s law restricting chemically derived hemp cannabinoids. Yankton attorney Nicholas “Nick” Moser appeared for Hemp Quarters 605 in the case docket.¹

The case was not about South Dakota’s medical-marijuana program directly. It was about hemp-derived products—items such as delta-8-style products and other chemically altered cannabinoids that lawmakers targeted through HB 1125. The law was signed by Gov. Kristi Noem in March 2024 and was set to take effect July 1, 2024.²

Hemp Quarters 605 argued that HB 1125 conflicted with federal hemp law, violated the Commerce Clause, amounted to a regulatory taking, and was void for vagueness.³ The business sought emergency relief to stop the law from taking effect.

Marijuana Rescheduling: What It Really Means for South Dakotans (and Why State Law May Collapse Without Legislative Action)

The court first denied the request for a temporary restraining order on June 14, 2024, because the plaintiff had not filed a verified complaint or affidavit and because notice requirements under Rule 65 had not been satisfied.⁴ Hemp Quarters 605 then filed a motion for preliminary injunction on June 20, 2024. Moser’s name appears on several docket entries for the plaintiff, including returns of service, the preliminary-injunction motion, pro hac vice motions for additional attorneys, and later filings.⁵

The court held a hearing on June 27, 2024. Hemp Quarters 605 offered testimony from owner Brandi Barth and expert Mark Krause.⁶ On June 29, 2024, U.S. District Judge Eric C. Schulte denied the preliminary injunction. The court found that Hemp Quarters 605 had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the state defendants.⁷

That ruling meant HB 1125 was allowed to take effect on July 1, 2024. Marijuana Moment, republishing South Dakota Searchlight reporting, summarized the practical result plainly: the new law barring the production or sale of certain high-inducing hemp-derived products would take effect after the judge declined to block it.⁸

The docket also shows some ordinary procedural cleanup. Hughes County State’s Attorney Casey Deibert was dismissed as a party by stipulation, leaving Gov. Noem and Attorney General Marty Jackley as defendants.⁹ The court also granted pro hac vice admission for out-of-state attorneys Joseph Stepina, Jacob Sutter, and Abtin Mehdizadegan, while Moser remained listed on filings for Hemp Quarters 605.¹⁰

The clean takeaway is this: Nick Moser’s cannabis-related public footprint appears most clearly in the Hemp Quarters 605 federal case, where he represented the plaintiff in a challenge to South Dakota’s hemp-cannabinoid restrictions. The case did not stop HB 1125 from taking effect, but it remains part of the public record of how South Dakota’s hemp industry responded when the state moved to restrict intoxicating hemp-derived products.

---

¹ Hemp Quarters 605 LLC v. Noem, No. 3:24-cv-03016, docket, U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.
² Marijuana Moment / South Dakota Searchlight, “South Dakota Law Banning Intoxicating Hemp Products Takes Effect After Judge Declines To Block It,” July 1, 2024.
³ Hemp Quarters 605 LLC v. Noem, Opinion and Order Denying Preliminary Injunction, June 29, 2024.
⁴ Id.
⁵ Case docket, filings dated June 18–July 2, 2024.
⁶ Opinion and Order, June 29, 2024.
⁷ Id.
⁸ Marijuana Moment / South Dakota Searchlight, July 1, 2024.
⁹ Case docket, Filing 24.
¹⁰ Case docket, Filings 13–15, 18–21.