Case 2:25-cv-00978-APG-BNW Document 42 Filed 08/04/25 Page 9 of 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Club, LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. , 648 F. Supp. 3d 1205, 1210–11 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (quoting Lee v. City of L.A. , 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)). Here, CDNA seeks a permanent injunction. The preliminary and permanent injunction standards are essentially the same, except the latter requires a showing of “actual success” on the merits. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 (1987). Plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms , 561 U.S. 139, 156–57 (2010) (cleaned up). A. The CEA Preempts States from Applying Gaming Law to Derivatives Traded on a Designated Contract Market. The Supremacy Clause provides that “federal law ‘shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.’” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 399 (2012) (quoting U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2). “Under this principle, Congress has the power to preempt state law.” Id. Preemption is “a purely legal question.” See In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig. , 969 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2020). There are three types of federal preemption: express, field, and conflict. Id. The fundamental question is the same under each—whether Congress intended a particular federal law to preempt state law. Under any preemption analysis the answer is clear— Congress intended to preempt state law as applied to derivatives traded on DCMs. 1. Nevada Gaming Laws Are Expressly Preempted as Applied to CDNA. Congress may preempt state law “by enacting a statute containing an express preemption provision.” Arizona, 567 U.S. at 399. Congress expressed its intent in the CEA’s text that state law is preempted as to CFTC-regulated derivatives: The [CFTC] shall have exclusive jurisdiction . . . with respect to accounts, agreements . . . and transactions involving swaps or contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery . . . traded or executed on a contract market designated pursuant to section 7 of [the CEA] or a swap execution facility pursuant to section 7b–3 of [the CEA] or
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
9
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs