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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?