Philadelphia Entertainment & Development Partners, L.P. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 576
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- PEDP obtained a Category 2 slot license in 2008 and was required to open with 1,500 machines by May 29, 2011.
- September 1, 2009 order extended deadlines with Conditions 5–6 for architectural plans and development timelines.
- PEDP sought extensions due to economic conditions; Wynn deal emerged but ultimately fell through in April 2010.
- BIE filed a complaint on April 29, 2010 alleging failure to comply with orders, lack of financial fitness, and unsuitability; summary judgment sought.
- Harrah's emerged as a later potential investor; PEDP provided but could not finalize financing; Board denied further extensions.
- December 23, 2010 Board granted summary judgment for BIE and revoked PEDP's license; decision upheld on petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board used correct legal test for financial fitness | PEDP argues improper financial fitness/suitability standard. | BIE argues standard applied was proper under Gaming Act and Regulations. | Standard properly applied; violates no error in test. |
| Whether financial fitness/suitability standard is void for vagueness | PEDP contends the standard is vague as applied to licensees. | Board's interpretations are clear within statutory/regulatory framework. | Not unconstitutionally vague; standard sufficiently defined. |
| Whether due process was violated by summary judgment without a hearing | PEDP alleges denial of hearing, insufficient record review, and discovery issues. | Summary judgment appropriate where no genuine disputes; discovery properly administered. | No due process violation; summary judgment upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rubino v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd., 1 A.3d 976 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (Board has broad regulatory authority over gaming; review limited to law and arbitrariness)
- Greenwood Gaming & Entm't, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd., 15 A.3d 884 (Pa. 2011) (limited standard of review for Board decisions)
- Station Square Gaming, L.P. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd., 927 A.2d 232 (Pa. 2007) (financial suitability considerations for licensure)
- Manor v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 796 A.2d 1020 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (due process in administrative hearings where no factual disputes exist)
- United Healthcare Benefits Trust v. Ins. Comm'r of Pennsylvania, 620 A.2d 81 (Pa.Cmwlth.1993) (summary judgment standard in administrative contexts)