864 F. Supp. 2d 361
W.D. Pa.2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege misconduct by PGCB officials and corporate entities in the development and licensing of Presque Isle Downs in Erie County, including allegedly coercive actions to terminate a consulting agreement and to impose SOC 58 on Rubino and Passport Realty.
- MTR Gaming Group, PID I, Técnica Development Corp., Rubino, Arneault, Passport Realty and related individuals are defendants in groups (PGCB employees, Board Commissioners, BIE, MTR/PIDI, and Scott/Ambrose defendants).
- The PGCB and BIE allegedly engaged in investigations, hearings, and licensing actions affecting license renewals and vendor relations, leading to claimed First Amendment and due process violations under §1983.
- Plaintiffs seek federal relief for §1983 claims and state-law claims for unjust enrichment, slander, and defamation; district court dismisses federal claims with prejudice and declines supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice to refile in state court.
- The court applied Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards, held many allegations insufficient to state a §1983 claim against multiple defendants, and found absolute quasi-judicial immunity to bar counts related to the September 2, 2009 Board decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arneault’s First Amendment retaliation claim survives. | Arneault alleges protected activity (communications and complaints) linked to retaliatory actions by BIE/PGCB. | Defendants argue lack of personal involvement and insufficient causation; actions pre-date protected activity. | Count 1 dismissed for lack of causation and personal involvement. |
| Whether Rubino’s First Amendment retaliation claim is time-barred or barred by immunity. | Rubino alleges ongoing retaliation by multiple defendants, including Board, BIE, and Commissioner Defendants. | Actions pre-2009 are time-barred; Keystone quasi-judicial immunity applies to the September 2, 2009 ruling. | Count 2 dismissed; quasi-judicial immunity and statute of limitations bar claims. |
| Whether Arneault’s and Rubino’s due process claims are viable. | Stigma-plus theory and denial/reinstatement processes violated procedural/substantive due process. | Post-deprivation hearings were adequate; no property interest in gaming licenses; immunity defenses apply. | Counts 3 and 4 dismissed; procedural due process satisfied; substantive due process not shown. |
| Whether the Commissioner Defendants can be liable under policy-maker theory for alleged constitutional harms. | Commissioners’ policies caused or allowed due process violations; BIE/OEC independence limits control. | BIE/OEC independent of Board; no direct policymaker liability; no actionable deprivation shown. | Count 6 dismissed; no supervisory/policy-maker liability established. |
| Whether the federal conspiracy claims survive. | DefendantsConspired to violate First/Fourteenth Amendment rights. | No viable underlying constitutional deprivation; time-bar constraints. | Counts 7 and 10 dismissed; conspiracy claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC v. Decker, 631 F.3d 89 (3d Cir. 2011) (absolute quasi-judicial immunity for PGCB Board members; factors support immunity)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility and non-conclusory pleading requirements)
- Graham v. City of Philadelphia, 402 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (due process name-clearing and Mathews factors in contextual analysis)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor test for what process is due)
- Dique v. New Jersey State Police, 603 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2010) (§1983 liability requires personal involvement)
- Lomax v. U.S. Senate Armed Forces Service Committee, 454 Fed.Appx. 93 (3d Cir. 2011) (reaffirming §1983 personal liability standard)
- Burns v. Alexander, 776 F.Supp.2d 57 (W.D. Pa. 2011) (analysis of stigma-plus and due process in Burns context)
- O’Connor v. City of Newark, No. 1:08-cv- (3d Cir. 2006) (limitations in §1983 continuing violation context)