ILNews

COA sides with Lauth in casino suit

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indianapolis commercial developer Lauth didn't breach a joint venture contract or any of its duties with other parties by partnering with the Bloomington-based Cook Group on an Orange County riverboat casino project, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In a unanimous holding in Lauth Indiana Resort & Casino LLC v. Lost River Development LLC, et al., 29A02-0710-CV-839, the court ruled on an issue of first impression about when a joint venture terminates in situations where the agreements contain no specific termination date, creating a bright-line rule as it reversed a ruling from Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation that determined there was an issue of fact about whether Lauth had violated the agreement and that a jury should decide that issue.

This case stems from the construction of an Orange County riverboat casino project starting in 2004. Three companies submitted original proposals - Trump Indiana Casino Management, Orange County Development affiliated with Larry Bird, and Lost River that was formed by Merit Gaming Group. After Lost River submitted its proposal, Lauth contacted the developer and they formalized an agreement that provided Lauth would have 50 percent ownership to create a joint venture.

The Indiana Gaming Commission debated between the Trump Indiana and the Lost River/Lauth proposal, ultimately deciding on Trump Indiana. Lauth started contacting other gaming companies and developers to see if anyone would partner with them in case Trump didn't come through; Lauth eventually partnered with the Cook Group to submit another proposal under the name Blue Sky Casino LLC. They won the bid, and the casino opened in Nov. 1, 2006.

As the project was ongoing, Lost River and Merit filed a complaint in late 2005 against Lauth and the Cook Group and alleged they'd entered into an enforceable contract for a joint venture and that, by teaming with Cook Group to form Blue Sky, the Indianapolis developer breached the contract.

Lauth filed a motion for summary judgment in June 2006 claiming that the agreement formed a joint venture at most and that it was terminated when the Gaming Commission chose Trump over Lost River's proposal. At the trial level, Judge Nation dismissed that motion, finding that it didn't contemplate a second bid proposal and that federal caselaw says that a formed joint venture agreement generally "remains in force until its purpose is accomplished or that purpose becomes impracticable."

The Court of Appeals disagreed, and its ruling gives guidance as to when a joint venture agreement ends if nothing is written or specifically detailed about how it ends.

"In conclusion, we hold that if a joint venture is formed for the purpose of submitting a proposal or similar bid, and the joint venture agreement is silent as to when or under what circumstances that venture will end, then the joint venture ends when the proposal or bid is rejected," the court wrote.

In this case, the Lost River joint venture ended as a matter of law when the IGC chose Trump Indiana. As a result, Lauth didn't breach the agreement and the trial judge erred in denying Lauth's motion for summary judgment, the appellate court said.

The case is remanded.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT