MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland
360 Or. 544
| Or. | 2016Background
- MT & M Gaming, a Washington casino operator that historically drew customers from Portland, sued the City of Portland under Oregon’s Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, ORS 28.010–.160, challenging the lawfulness of card rooms operating under the city’s social gaming permit program.
- Oregon law authorizes "social games" only where no house player/house bank/house income exists; Portland permits social gaming but allows permittees to charge membership or cover fees (subject to city conditions).
- MT & M alleged economic injury: Portland card rooms (operating under city permits) attracted former MT & M patrons by charging membership/cover fees and permitting dealer tips, which MT & M contended violated Oregon law.
- The City moved for summary judgment arguing MT & M lacked standing; the trial court dismissed for lack of standing, reasoning MT & M was subject to Washington law, not Oregon law.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, adopting a rule that plaintiffs must be subject to the law challenged or have Oregon contacts; MT & M sought review.
- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed but clarified standing law: a plaintiff needs a "legally recognized interest" affected by the statute (not necessarily being subject to the statute or within its zone of interests); MT & M’s asserted competitive injury was not a legally recognized interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MT & M had standing under ORS 28.020 to seek declaratory relief about Oregon social gaming laws | MT & M: Any person whose rights/status/relations are affected may seek a declaration; no requirement to be subject to the statute | City: MT & M lacks standing because its interest is outside the statute's zone of interests and it is not subject to Oregon law | Held: Standing requires an adverse effect on a "legally recognized interest." MT & M failed to show its competitive injury is a legally recognized interest, so no standing |
| Whether plaintiffs must be subject to the challenged statute (or have Oregon property/business) to have standing | MT & M: No, not required | City & lower courts: Plaintiffs must be subject to the law or have Oregon contacts | Held: Rejected. Plaintiffs need not be subject to the statute or own property/do business in Oregon; the correct test is legal recognition of the affected interest |
| Whether the "zone of interests" test is a required standing rule under Oregon UDJA | MT & M: UDJA does not incorporate a zone-of-interests limitation | City: Oregon should adopt a zone-of-interests limitation (as in federal law) | Held: Oregon does not require a zone-of-interests rule as a blanket limitation; legally recognized interests may arise from statute, common law, constitution, regulations, or other sources |
| Whether MT & M’s alternative claim (ability to obtain a similar Portland permit) cured standing | MT & M: Sought leave to amend to seek declaration it could operate like permittees | City: Amendment irrelevant to standing on original pleadings | Held: Trial court denied amendment; Supreme Court did not review denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed on present record |
Key Cases Cited
- MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland, 360 Or. 544 (2016) (Oregon Supreme Court opinion summarized)
- Morgan v. Sisters School District #6, 353 Or. 189 (2013) (articulates three-part UDJA standing test: legally recognized interest, real/probable injury, and practical effect of relief)
- Doyle v. City of Medford, 356 Or. 336 (2014) (applies Morgan factors; plaintiffs were within class owed statutory duty)
- League of Oregon Cities v. State of Oregon, 334 Or. 645 (2002) (recognizes standing for plaintiffs whose interests are adversely affected though not direct objects of the statute)
- Eckles v. State of Oregon, 306 Or. 380 (1988) (property and contract interests can supply legally recognized interests for UDJA standing)
- Ass’n of Data Processing Service Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970) (federal origin of the "zone of interests" concept in APA standing)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) (U.S. Supreme Court discussion of the zone-of-interests inquiry in statutory causes of action)