2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
43 MR. HAVEMANN: I'm not sure even the State would --
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
or the Board would argue that the entire amount of --
THE COURT: They're probably going to now, but go
ahead.
MR. HAVEMANN: Now that you've floated that proposition. They certainly didn't argue it in their opposition. I don't know that it is a tenable argument to say that the full value of the contracts is the amount that the State would lose. And, remember, this is the monetary value that the State would lose in the event that an injunction is issued and they ultimately prevail. So I don't think that they stand to lose anything because their position is these contracts are unlawful. So if they're claiming they're worried about, you know, missed tax revenue, they wouldn't get that tax revenue under their interpretation of the law because these contracts would not be permitted under law. So that is sort of the argument that I expected to see in the opposition and didn't. So I don't know that they have really made any argument from which I could make a determination about what the appropriate bond is, and for that reason I don't think that a bond is necessary. And there are cases that say that in this sort of case it's not necessary for the Court to issue a bond, but if you do, I think a de minimis bond is appropriate. And,
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