Case 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 05/14/25 Page 23 of 25
ii. The NRA’s Defense Shares a Common Question of Law with the Current Case.
1
2
Rule 24(b)(1)(B) also requires the applicant to show that its claim or defense “shares a
3
common question of law or fact with the main action.” Glickman , 159 F.3d at 412. The reasons
4
provided in support of intervention by right also support permissive intervention because they
5
demonstrate the commonality between the NRA’s legal arguments and those existing in the
6
current case. The NRA seeks to intervene to defend Nevada’s state law authority to regulate in -
7
state sports betting operators — including Kalshi —against Kalshi’s preemption argument based on
8
the CEA. “Because this is the precise claim at issue” in Kalshi’s complaint (and motion for
9
preliminary injunction), PEST Comm. , 648 F. Supp. 2d at 1214; see ECF No. 1 at 15-16; ECF No.
10
18 at 12- 21, and the NRA “raises arguments in response to” Kalshi’s lawsuit, Paher v. Cegavske,
11
3:20-cv-243-MMD-WGC, 2020 WL 2042365, at *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 28, 2020), there is a common
12
question of law between the NRA’s defense and the current case.
13
Further, the NRA has significant and unique interests that directly relate to the questions
14
raised in this case and the NRA should therefore be permitted to represent those interests before
15
this Court. As explained supra Sections III(A) and III(B)(i), the NRA’s members, through their
16
investments in licensure, have an interest in a well and uniformly regulated market in which to
17
operate through their licenses. Anything less will erode public confidence and trust in Nevada’s
18
gaming industry, which is vital to Nevada’s economy and the welfare of its residents. See NRS
19
463.0129(1)(a)-(c). Not only does the NRA seek to protect the Nevada gaming industry and the
20
general welfare of the state, it also has an interest in protecting its own members. Those members,
21
including some of the larging gaming establishments in the state, have worked for decades to earn
22
the public’s trust and build their reputation in an industry that, absent regulation, is susceptible to
23
potential fraud and scandal. Kalshi’s circumvention of Nevada’s regulatory scheme risks an
24
increase in sports betting scandals, which will come at the costs of both Nevada residents and the
25
NRA’s members well -earned reputations.
26
27
28
Page 22 of 24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs