Mason-Dixon Resorts, L.P. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board
52 A.3d 1087
Pa.2012Background
- Mason-Dixon applied for the remaining Category 3 slot in a four-applicant field (Woodlands Fayette L.L.C., Nemacolin Woodlands Fayette, Penn Harris Gaming, Bushkill Group) for a resort-hotel-based slot license under the 2004 Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act.
- The Act authorizes Category 1 (racetrack), Category 2 (standalone), and Category 3 (resort hotel) slot licenses, with Section 1305 detailing eligibility for Category 3.
- The Board awarded the Category 3 license to Woodlands in April 2011 after extensive review, hearings, and public comments, issuing a 106-page Adjudication in May 2011.
- The Board’s Adjudication concluded Woodlands satisfied the statutory requirements and was in the public’s best interest, denying the other three applicants.
- Mason-Dixon petitioned for Court review under 4 Pa.C.S. § 1204, challenging Woodlands’ eligibility and the Board’s processes, among other factors.
- The majority decision upholds the Board’s award to Woodlands; Justice Baer files a concurrence and dissent on the character-suitability portion, and Justice Todd joins.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Woodlands met eligibility by location as a well-established resort hotel | Woodlands was not in a well-established hotel; “in” was interpreted too broadly | Board properly interpreted “in” to include multiple on-site buildings within the resort grounds | No error; Woodlands eligible despite separate building housing the gaming floor |
| Whether Woodlands met the 275 guest rooms requirement | Woodlands did not prove 275 rooms under common ownership | Woodlands had 322 rooms (280 after excluding seasonal Falling Rock) under common ownership | No reversible error; room-count evidence supported compliance under deferential review |
| Whether due process and procedural fairness were violated by Board actions | Due process denied due to record-reopening refusals, grand jury report, and political influence concerns | Board properly exercised discretion; hearings and confidentiality provisions were proper under the Act | No due-process violations; Board’s procedures and post-decision actions were proper under the circumstances |
| Whether Board improperly weighed the ‘quality of the facility’ factor | Board gave excessive weight to Woodlands’ facility quality over statutory factors | Board appropriately weighed all statutory factors and used its discretion; not arbitrary or capricious | Not reversible; Board did not err in weighing factors under the Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Station Square Gaming L.P. v. Pa. Gaming Control Bd., 592 Pa. 664 (Pa. 2007) (appeals of slot licensing decisions governed by § 1204; review for error of law or capricious disregard of evidence)
- Pocono Manor Investors, LP v. Pa. Gaming Control Bd., 592 Pa. 625 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review and evidentiary considerations in licensing decisions)
- Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment, Inc. v. Pa. Gaming Control Bd., 609 Pa. 368 (Pa. 2011) (affirmation of Board decisions; prudent man considerations discussed)
- Riverwalk Casino, LP. v. Pa. Gaming Control Bd., 592 Pa. 505 (Pa. 2007) (capricious disregard of evidence standard; Board discretion in licensing)