2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
30 client's business. That's a direct effect on your client, because someone could bet on the Final 4 with a sportsbook or someone could place a contract offer on the same thing with your client. That's not attenuated three parties around; that's direct competition. And so taking your argument to its next logical conclusion, there is no space for the Nevada gaming laws whatsoever if they compete with your client. MR. HAVEMANN: So that's -- again, that's certainly not our argument. And I -- THE COURT: Where's the line drawn, then? What happens tomorrow when the gaming -- when somebody else tries to do something in that regard? You can't touch it? MR. HAVEMANN: The question is whether it's direct, and I respectfully think, in response to your hypothetical, I would argue that that is not a direct regulation of the market itself. It's -- it directly -- it's an indirect regulation because you have an effect on one party, and the effect on that party affects the designated contract market. And so I think that -- I mean, you know, you would have briefing and you would have arguments about whether the effect is direct or not, but for present purposes, I don't see any -- I did not see any argument in the State's opposition that this is not a direct effect. I don't -- I cannot come up with such an argument myself. And I think that -- so I think
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
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