2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
And we think that that is right.
And so Courts have sort of -- you know, there's a line between what would directly affect trading on a market and what would not, and so Courts have found that if you're bringing a fiduciary breach claim against your broker maybe that's not preempted, but here, I think the -- I don't really see any argument that's not a direct regulation of the market itself. THE COURT: Well, let's test that for a second. I don't disagree that's what the 7th Circuit said, but let's talk how broad that language goes, because if the State law would directly affect trading on the operation of your market, so your market is who wins the Final 4 -- and that's clearly within the CFTC is what you're arguing, that's one of your contracts -- sportsbooks here in Nevada take a whole bunch of bets on who makes the Final 4. The Nevada Gaming Control Board and Gaming Commission regulate all of that through sportsbooks. The competition between a sportsbook and your client's contracts on the Final 4 directly affect each other. So if you take that 7th Circuit language that anything that directly affects your operations would be barred or preempted, that would suggest that Nevada cannot regulate gaming, betting on the Final 4, because they're going to take away market participants from your market because people want to bet in a sportsbook. So where's the cutoff there?
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Judy K. Moore, RMR, CRR
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs