Fortune Players Group, Inc. v. Quint, Jr.
3:16-cv-00800
| N.D. Cal. | Aug 2, 2016Background
- Fortune Players Group runs third-party propositional player services regulated by the Gambling Control Act.
- Fortune Players Group employees Parungao and De Los Reyes were present during a Bureau search of Fortune Players Group’s offices on Oct 15, 2015.
- Six Bureau Special Agents and two licensing unit employees conducted the search, questioned employees, and seized documents and belongings, lasting nearly five hours.
- Medina, a non-party former Luck Chances Casino owner, allegedly controlled both Fortune Players Group and Luck Chances Casino, affecting regulatory oversight.
- The complaint asserts Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations; the government moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Section 19827 on its face | Plaintiff argues Section 19827 violates the Fourth Amendment. | Defendants contend Section 19827 passes Burger’s three-part test for closely regulated industries. | Section 19827 is facially constitutional under Burger. |
| Procedural due process challenge to section 19827 | Plaintiffs claim due process violations due to lack of pre-seizure procedures. | Defendants assert existing statutory safeguards suffice. | Facial and procedural due process claims dismissed with prejudice. |
| As-applied Fourth Amendment challenge to the search | Search of Fortune Players Group’s offices was unreasonable, overly broad, and prolonged. | Courts should defer to the reasonableness of a post hoc review; motion to dismiss warranted. | Plaintiffs stated a plausible Fourth Amendment claim; third claim denied. |
| As-applied Fourteenth Amendment challenge to due process | Precompliance review was necessary to safeguard rights. | Statutory safeguards (including Chief’s approval) provide adequate process. | Fourth Claim fail as a matter of law; dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) (closely regulated industries; warrantless inspections allowed with constraints)
- Hudson v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 2443 (2015) (hotel inspections not closely regulated like gambling; Patel cited for framework)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must show plausible claim, not mere speculation)