Adell v. MACON COUNTY GREYHOUND PARK, INC.
785 F. Supp. 2d 1226
M.D. Ala.2011Background
- 853 plaintiffs allege they lost millions wagering on Victoryland electronic bingo machines in Macon County, Alabama.
- Defendants include Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc. (Victoryland), its president Milton McGregor, and several out-of-state electronic bingo machine manufacturers.
- Plaintiffs allege amendment 744 to the Alabama Constitution and sheriff regulations govern bingo; Plaintiffs contend Victoryland’s operation violated those rules and Alabama law.
- Plaintiffs seek recovery of gambling losses under RICO (Count III) and Alabama § 8-1-150 (Count I); they previously pursued a DTPA claim (Count II) which they later abandoned.
- Manufacturers allegedly provided and supported electronic bingo machines, with revenue-sharing arrangements; Plaintiffs allege machines were rigged or operated unlawfully to benefit certain parties, including Langford.
- The court granted in part and denied in part, dismissing the RICO claim and ADTPA claim, but allowing the § 8-1-150 claim to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RICO standing under § 1964(c) | Plaintiffs allege injury to business/property from gambling losses due to racketeering. | Plaintiffs lack the concrete business/property injury and proximate causation required. | Plaintiffs lack standing; RICO claim dismissed. |
| Proximate causation/by reason of | Injury caused by defendants' racketeering activity; omissions argued as direct causation. | Voluntary gambling and mere but-for causation sever the link to defendants' conduct. | Proximate causation not established; injury not by reason of RICO violations; RICO claim dismissed. |
| Ripeness of § 8-1-150 claim | § 8-1-150 claim is ripe; legality of electronic bingo is a material state-law issue. | Ripeness defeated because outcome of related state court litigation is uncertain. | § 8-1-150 claim not dismissed on ripeness; court declines to dismiss for lack of ripeness. |
| ADTPA claim | ADTPA claim remains viable alongside other claims. | ADTPA claim is not ripe and should be dismissed; plaintiffs abandoned this claim. | ADTPA claim dismissed. |
| Joint and several liability under § 8-1-150 | Plaintiffs seek joint and several liability for § 8-1-150 losses. | Motlow v. Johnson limits joint liability; need record to decide. | Court declines to resolve joint/several liability at this stage; reserved for later proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 465 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2006) (elements of civil RICO standing; § 1964(c) injury requirements)
- Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 130 S. Ct. 983 (S. Ct. 2010) (proximate causation; pleading standard for RICO standing)
- Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010) (Rule 9(b) heightened pleading for fraud in RICO)
- Price v. Pinnacle Brands, Inc., 138 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 1998) (injury to mere expectancy or intangible property not RICO injury)
- Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int'l, LP, 300 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2002) (rigged gambling; lost opportunity not RICO injury unless direct)
- In re MasterCard Int'l, Inc., Internet Gambling Litig., 132 F. Supp. 2d 468 (E.D. La. 2001) (voluntary gambling grounds for proximate cause; intervening acts)
- Green v. Aztar Corp., No. 02-C-3514, 2003 WL 22012205 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2003) (losses from gambling not RICO injury; independent actor concept)
- Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., 232 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2000) (voluntary gambling as intervening cause; limits RICO recovery)
- Knowles (Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Knowles, 39 So.3d 100 (Ala. 2009) (adhesion contract theory in casino wagering; context for contracts)