TRIBAL GAMING IN FLORIDA
A. The closed courthouse door: denial of the Seminole tribe’s motion to intervene Despite being the entity most impacted by the 2021 Compact, the Seminole Tribe was not included as a party to the West Flagler litigation. 112 The Seminole Tribe argued that its intervention as an indispensable party was the best way for the Tribe to both preserve “its sovereign immunity from suit and also ensure that litigation challenging [the 2021 Compact] does not proceed without it.” 113 To that end, the Seminole Tribe filed a Motion to Intervene with the sole and limited purpose of moving to dismiss the claims against the Department of the Interior and Secretary Haaland. 114 The Tribe’s fourteen-page motion included a three-part argument. 115 First, the Seminole Tribe argued that, as a means to protect sovereign immunity, limited intervention was the appropriate avenue for a tribe to file a motion to dismiss. 116 The Tribe cited several cases from the D.C. Circuit and D.C. District courts, including MGM Global Resorts Development, LLC v. U.S. Department of the Interior . 117 Like the West Flagler case, in MGM Global , a gaming operator asserted that the Secretary’s approval of two tribes’ compacts under IGRA violated the APA.118 118 The MGM Global court found that the tribes had Article III standing to join the lawsuit and performed a four-factor analysis to determine if intervention was permissible under Federal Rule 24(a). 119 The MGM Global court determined that the tribes met all four prerequisites for intervention. 120 The court first determined
(“UIGEA”). 102 The State responded by pointing out that none of the three federal statutes create a private right of action and that the parimutuel operators lacked standing. 103 The Seminole Tribe also filed a motion to dismiss based on the parimutuel operators failure to join the tribe as an indispensable party to the litigation. 104 The court agreed with Florida that the operators lacked standing to pursue the case and dismissed it without addressing the Tribe’s status as an indispensable party of the merits of the claims. 105 A week after notice of the 2021 Compact was published in the Federal Register, the parimutuel operators filed a second simultaneous suit in D.C. District Court against the Department of the Interior and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland. 106 Shifting the focus of their argument, the parimutuel operators this time claimed that Secretary Haaland’s approval of the 2021 Compact with the mobile wagering provisions included therein violated the Administrative Procedures Act (the “APA”). 107 A month later, a group of individuals and businesses generally opposed to the expansion of gambling in Florida filed a similar suit challenging the 2021 Compact under the APA. 108 Both suits argued that the 2021 Compact was in contention with IGRA, UIGEA, and the Federal Wire Act. 109 Instead of relying on each statute as a cause of action, the parimutuel operators and gambling opponents used the arguments to show that approval of the 2021 Compact was “otherwise not in accordance with law,” and thus a violation of the APA. 110 Given the nature of the complaints, the court consolidated the cases and all parties proceeded against Secretary Haaland under the West Flagler case. 111 102 Id .
103 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 2, W. Flagler Assocs. v. DeSantis, No. 4:21-cv-00270, 2021 WL 2774512 (N.D.Fla. Oct. 18, 2021). 104 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join an Indispensable Party at 1, W. Flagler Assocs. v. DeSantis, No. 4:21-cv- 00270, 2021 WL 2774512 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2021). 105 W. Flagler Assocs. v. DeSantis, No. 4:21-cv-00270, 2021 WL 2774512, at *3 (N.D.Fla. Oct. 18, 2021). 106 West Flagler at *12. 107 Complaint at 36, West Flagler . 108 Complaint at 4-8, Monterra MF, LLC v. Haaland, No. 1:21-cv-02513 (D.D.C. Sep 27, 2021). 109 Id .; Complaint at 36, West Flagler. 110 Complaint at 32-33, Monterra MF, LLC v. Haaland, No. 1:21-cv-02513 (D.D.C. Sep 27, 2021). 111 Minute Order (Oct. 4, 2021), West Flagler . 112 Motion to Intervene for a Limited Purpose at 1, West Flagler [hereinafter Motion to Intervene]. 113 Id . at 4 114 Id . 115 Id . 116 Id . at 4-5. 117 Id . 118 MGM Glob. Resorts Dev., LLC v. United States Dep’t of the Interio r, No. CV 19-2377 (RC), 2020 WL 5545496, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 16, 2020) 119 Id . at *4 -*5. 120 Id .
PAGE 13
IMGL MAGAZINE | APRIL 2023
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker