ILNews

COA: No preliminary injunction against casinos

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges agreed a city isn't entitled to a preliminary injunction to order riverboat casinos to make payments to the city, but the judges disagreed as to why the city didn't meet its burden to prove an injunction was necessary.

In City of Gary, Ind. v. The Majestic Star Casino, et al., No. 49A02-0807-CV-625, Gary appealed an order denying its motion to transfer venue and an order denying the city's motion for a preliminary injunction to compel Majestic Star I and II casinos to make payments from adjusted gross receipts to the city.

In addition to the city's agreement with the casinos, the city entered into an agreement with Gary New Century to redevelop property; several years later, GNC's rights to a portion of the redevelopment property were assigned to Majestic Star I.

In 2005, the city, GNC, and the casinos amended their original agreements. A dispute arose about the validity and meaning of the 2005 amendment, and the casinos stopped paying a portion of their adjusted gross receipts to the city as in the original agreement and deposited it into a separate bank account to be distributed in accordance with an arbitration award.

The casinos and GNC filed a complaint in Marion County against the city and the Indiana Gaming Commission alleging the city failed to fulfill its obligations under the GNC agreement and the 2005 amendment. Gary filed a motion to transfer venue to Lake County and for a preliminary injunction to make the casinos resume payments to the city, arguing the lack of money hurt the general public because it affects the city's ability to pay overtime for public workers and repair infrastructure. The trial court denied both motions.

The Court of Appeals unanimously agreed it didn't have jurisdiction over Gary's appeal of its motion to transfer venue because the city filed its appeal after the 30-day deadline had passed under Ind. App. R. 14(A).

The judges also affirmed the trial court's denial of Gary's motion for a preliminary injunction, although their reasons for doing so differed. Judge Elaine Brown wrote there are other options for Gary to continue with its city services, such as issuing bonds, instead of cutting essential services. Because the casinos are depositing payments into a segregated bank account and Gary has the capacity to issue general obligation bonds, Judge Brown wrote the city failed to show an inadequate remedy at law, thus causing irreparable harm pending resolution of the substantive action.

Judge Terry Crone, in a separate concurring-in-result opinion, believed the appellate court shouldn't consider the city's ability to issue bonds in assessing the nature and extent of its alleged damages and the availability of alternative remedies.

"Only rarely should the judiciary intervene in such matters, and I believe that we should refrain from serving as the City's de facto budget director in this case," he wrote.

Although the judge believes the casinos' withholding of payments to the city to be clearly against the public interest, the city has an alternate remedy through an arbitration clause in the agreement, so a preliminary injunction isn't necessary. Judge Cale Bradford, concurring in result in a separate opinion, agreed with Judge Crone to the extent the arbitration clause provides Gary an alternate remedy at law.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT