Case 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 05/14/25 Page 5 of 25
Miller , 578 F.Supp.2d 1290, 1295 (D. Nev. 2008); Fair Maps Nevada v. Cegavske , No. 3:20-cv-
1
271-MMD-WGC, 2020 WL 8188427 (D. Nev. May 20, 2020); Cegavske v. Hollowood , 512 P.3d
2
284 (Nev. 2022); People’s Legislature v. Miller , 131 Nev. 1332 (Nev. 2015) (unpublished).
3
B. Procedural History.
4
Kalshi filed its complaint and concurrently moved for a temporary restraining order and
5
injunctive relief on March 28, 2025, less than two months ago. ECF Nos. 1, 18. Kalshi asserted a
6
novel legal theory relying on the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) to preempt Nevada’s
7
longstanding regulation of sports betting. ECF Nos. 1, 18. Kalshi represented that its sports event
8
contracts had been authorized by the CFTC. ECF No. 18 at 2.
9
T he State Defendants responded to Kalshi’s motion for injunctive relief on April 4, and
10
counter-moved for a competing temporary restraining order on that same date. ECF No. 34, 35.
11
The State Defendants’ arguments, understandably given the short timeframe created by Kalshi,
12
did not cover the length and breadth of argumentation that has since been presented in similar
13
cases brought by Kalshi throughout the country. The Court held oral arguments on April 8. ECF
14
No. 43. Relying in part on Kalshi’s arguments and representations , this Court granted Kalshi’s
15
motion for preliminary injunction eleven days after Kalshi filed it. See ECF Nos. 43, 45.
16
Since then, the Court has not issued any further substantive rulings. The State Defendants
17
filed a motion to dismiss Kalshi’s complaint on April 23. ECF No. 50. A week ago, Kalshi filed a
18
response to the motion to dismiss on May 7. ECF No. 55. The State Defendants filed a reply on
19
May 14. ECF No. 56. On April 29, this Court issued a minute order granting the parties’ request
20
to continue the status hearing until May 15, 2025. ECF No. 54. The NRA files this Motion in
21
advance of that hearing to allow the parties and court to discuss the NRA’s potential in volvement.
22
Further, in order to eliminate any prejudice to the parties, the NRA intends to attend the hearing
23
to ensure that it can be part of any scheduling conversation should the Court so permit.
24
The Court has noted that “additional briefing on the legal issues would be helpful to me
25
on a final resolution of the legal issues.” Hr’g Tr. (Rough), Apr. 8, 2025, 69:19 -22. To the extent
26
that the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss does not resolve this case, the NRA submits that its
27
28
Page 4 of 24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs