Former aide Justin Shoham alleges in a newly filed New Jersey lawsuit that state Sen. Raj Mukherji and others used his work and claimed ownership stake in two cannabis ventures while denying him payment, control, or economic benefits. Mukherji denies exploiting Shoham and calls the case a business dispute. The competing accounts have not been resolved in court.
What does the lawsuit allege?
Shoham’s verified complaint, filed September 30, 2026, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, describes what it calls “a predatory cartelization scheme involving Defendant, Raj Mukherji, a sitting New Jersey State Senator.” That is the plaintiff’s characterization, not a court finding. The complaint concerns two separate projects: consulting work tied to a Union Township dispensary and an alleged ownership role in a Springfield dispensary.
Union Township: consulting fees
The complaint says the Union project began in December 2021 and that Shoham worked through his firm, Enigma Political Consulting. His alleged work included community engagement, local advocacy, and regulatory matters for Best Buds Union. Shoham claims $230,000 remains unpaid for consulting services and a transaction bonus. That amount is alleged in the complaint; it is not an established debt or award.
Springfield: claimed ownership and control
For the Story Dispensary of Springfield project, the complaint says the transaction began in March 2022 and Shoham agreed to be the 60% owner and managing member. It alleges that documents valued his interest at no less than $180,000 for a lender’s purchase option, but that he was later frozen out of meaningful ownership benefits and business participation. The $180,000 figure is the minimum value the complaint says documents assigned to his interest for that option; it is not a court valuation or proven loss.
#1 Best Overall
The complaint’s central theory is that Shoham’s social-equity qualifications, consulting work, and claimed ownership helped secure approvals or support the businesses, while he was denied compensation, control, or economic benefits. The pleading presents Shoham’s account and allegations; it does not establish that licensing rules were violated.
Who is Justin Shoham?
Shoham is Mukherji’s former chief of staff and the plaintiff in the case. In addition to his alleged Springfield ownership role, he says he provided consulting services for the Union Township project through Enigma Political Consulting. The complaint says he recorded seven conversations with participants, including conversations with Mukherji, between March 14, 2022, and February 4, 2024. Those recordings are described by Shoham; the available reports do not establish independent authentication or judicial evaluation of them.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
What does Mukherji say in response?
Mukherji disputes the complaint’s account. In an October 2, 2026, interview with Hudson County View, he said: “I’m stunned to be named in this. Whatever his quarrel, it’s not with me. I have not been with the company for two or three years.” He characterized the suit as a business dispute designed to attract attention and denied exploiting Shoham.
Mukherji also rejected the claim that Shoham was used to satisfy social-equity aims, saying: “I’m a minority myself, and most of my partners and their families are either Black/Hispanic/Asian or women or veterans or impact zone residents or a combination thereof, so the idea that we needed or exploited Justin for that purpose is ridiculous.” These are Mukherji’s statements as reported by Hudson County View, not findings about the parties’ conduct.
What have Story and BBNJ Opco said?
Lee Vartan, counsel for Story and BBNJ Opco, told Hudson County View that “the documents that Mr. Shoham now claims were predatory were drafted by experienced outside counsel, and their terms—including the interest rates—have always strictly complied with state law.” That is the defendants’ position, not an adjudicated conclusion.
Headynj reported on October 2, 2026, that counsel said the defendants intend to seek more than $5.1 million in counterclaims. This is a reported litigation position, not an award or a finding that Shoham owes that amount.
Rank #4
How the two business disputes differ
| Project | Shoham’s claimed role | What the complaint says is at issue |
|---|---|---|
| Best Buds Union, Union Township | Consultant through Enigma Political Consulting | Alleged unpaid consulting fees and transaction bonus totaling $230,000 |
| Story Dispensary, Springfield | Intended 60% owner and managing member | Alleged loss of meaningful ownership benefits and participation; documents allegedly valued his interest at no less than $180,000 for a lender purchase option |
Both rows summarize allegations in Shoham’s September 30, 2026, verified complaint. The figures are claims in the pleading, not independently established financial losses.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is a cannabis social-equity owner?
In this dispute, “social-equity” refers to qualifications the complaint says Shoham had and alleges were used to secure approvals or support for cannabis businesses. The available accounts do not establish that a regulator found the businesses improperly relied on those qualifications, or that any party violated licensing requirements. Mukherji disputes Shoham’s account and says the businesses did not need or exploit him for that purpose.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
What happened before this lawsuit?
In December 2022, the New Jersey Monitor reported on a separate proposed Story dispensary in Hoboken. It reported that Mukherji, then an assemblyman, helped connect parties involved in the proposal with property owners; Mukherji said at the time that he had no financial interest in that Hoboken location. That earlier proposal is distinct from the Springfield and Union Township matters in Shoham’s complaint and does not prove the current allegations.
Has a court ruled on the allegations?
The complaint was filed September 30, 2026, and local reports published October 2 describe the filing and the parties’ competing accounts. The available sources establish the filing, but do not establish a merits ruling or later docket activity. The claims about payment, ownership, exploitation, and legal compliance remain disputed allegations.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
