DOCSLIB.ORG

Notice of Motion and Relief Under Federal Rule

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Notice of Motion and Relief Under Federal Rule Case 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW Document 7 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 1 of 34 TBoutrous ibsondunn.com 333 Sout Grand Avenue CASE NO. CV 08-5121-GHK (CWx) NOTICE OF MOTION AND RELIEF UNDER FEDERAL RULE limited liability CCHi!pany; and Declaration of Douglas M. Fuchs filed concurrently herewith i Date: October 14, 2008 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Case 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW Document 7 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 2 of 34 H. King of This motion is made under Federal Rules of grounds that: (1) Plaintiff s suit, which seeks recovery of alleged gambling losses, is barred (2) Plaintiff canot bring a claim for breach of contract because he alleges no (3) Plaintiff fails to allege his claim for fraud with the required particularity; ( 4) Plaintiff fails to allege a claim for negligence or negligent (5) Plaintiff canot recover in tort for his alleged damages, which are pure (6) Plaintiff s unjust enrichment claim fails because unjust enrichment is not claim as one for restitution, Plaintiff This Notice of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS Case 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW Document 7 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 3 of 34 1 This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 2 which occurred on August 28,2008. 3 DATED: September 15,2008 Theodo ë:Boutrous, r: SCIENTIFIC GAMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Case 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW Document 7 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 4 of 34 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1 B. Pari-Mutuel Betting and Multi-Entrant Horse Racing Bets ..................................................................................................5 CALIFORNIA LA W AND PUBLIC POLICY BARS EACH SINGLE VIABLE A. Plaintiffs Contract Claim Fails As A Matter Of B. Plaintiff Cannot State A Claim For Unjust Enrichment................ C. Plaintiffs Tort Claims Fail As A Matter of Rigorous Standards For Pleading Fraud.............................. And Therefore, Canot Be Liable For ' Plaintiffs Tort Claims Are Also Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Case 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW Document 7 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 5 of 34 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 232 CaL. App. 3d 1335,284 CaL. Rptr. 108 (1991).............................................passim Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., Charnay v. Cobert, 145 CaL. App. 4th 170, 51 CaL. Rptr.3d 471 (2006)...................................................19 Chavez v. Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co., Dinosaur Dev. Inc. v. White, 216 CaL. App. 3d 1310,265 CaL. Rptr. 525 (1989).................................................... 17 DM Research, Inc. v. College of Am. Pathologists, Dumas v. Kipp, Emery v. Emery, 45 CaL. 2d 421,289 P.2d 218 (1955) ...........................................................................8 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Case 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW Document 7 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 6 of 34 Enreach Tech., Inc. v. Embedded Internet Solutions Inc., Fieldstone Co. v. Briggs Plumbing Prods., Inc., 54 CaL. App. 4th 357,62 CaL. Rptr. 2d 701 (1997)....................................................22 Ghirardo v. Antonioli, 14 CaL. 4th 39,57 CaL. Rptr.2d 687 (1996)................................................................18 Gridley v. Dorn, 57 CaL. 78 (1880).......................................................................................................... 8 30 CaL. 2d 49, 179 P.2d 804 (1947) .............................................................................8 83 CaL. 7 (1890).................................................................................................... 19,20 In re Camarillo, In re Paxil Litig., Kelly v. First Astri Corp., 72 CaL. App. 4th 462,84 CaL. Rptr.2d 810 (1999)..............................................passim Kelly v. First Astri Corp., Lauriedale Assocs. Ltd. v. Wilson, 7 CaL. App. 4th 1439, 9 CaL. Rptr. 2d 774 (1992)......................................................18 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Case 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW Document 7 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 7 of 34 83 CaL. App. 2d 381, 188 P.2d 758 (1948) ..............................................................8,9 77 CaL. App. 4th 723, 91 CaL. Rptr.2d 881 (2000).....................................................18 101 CaL. App. 2d 215,225 P.2d 276 (1950) ................................................................6 123 CaL. App. 4th 379, 20 CaL. Rptr.3d 1 15 (2004)...................................................17 210 CaL. App. 3d 100,257 CaL. Rptr. 473 (1989)...................................................... 14 106 CaL. App. 4th 779, 131 CaL. Rptr. 347 (2003)..................................................... 17 15 CaL. App. 4th 1821, 19 CaL. Rptr. 646 (1993).........................................................8 North Am. Chem. v. Superior Ct., 59 CaL. App. 4th 764,69 CaL. Rptr.2d 466 (1997).....................................................21 Paracor Fin. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 25 CaL. App. 3d 750, 102 CaL. Rptr. 286 (1972)........................................................19 S.U Wilson & Co. v. Smith Intl, Inc., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Case 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW Document 7 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 8 of 34 Scognamilo v. Herrick, 106 CaL. App. 4th 1139, 131 CaL. Rptr.2d 393 (2003)...............................................13 63 CaL. 2d 9, 45 CaL. Rptr. 1 7 (1965).........................................................................21 Smith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (S.D. CaL. 2001)......................................................................19 138 CaL. App. 2d 350, 291 P.2d 987 (1956) ................................................................8 73 CaL. App. 2d 25, 165 P.2d 709 (1946) ....................................................................8 13 CaL. 4th 475, 53 CaL. Rptr.2d 812 (1996)................................................................8 43 CaL. 3d 64, 233 CaL. Rptr. 294 (1987).........................................................1, 13, 14 CaL. Civ. Code § 3301....................................................................................................13 OTHER AUTHORITIES NEW YORK TIMES (May 4, 2008) .................................................................................11 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Case 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW Document 7 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 9 of 34 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Case 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW Document 7 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 10 of 34 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 23 INTRODUCTIONI. 4 Plaintiffs lawsuit is an il-fated attempt to recover losingbets he (and a putative 5 nationwide class of 7 these hopelessly speculative claims are nothing more than an attempt to use the legal 8 system as insurance for losing wagers. This lawsuit is doomed for several simple and 9 compellng reasons. 10 First and foremost, California law and public policy bar suits by plaintiffs 11 seeking to recover damages or restitution arising out of gambling activity, regardless of 12 its legality. See Kelly v. First Astri Corp., 72 CaL. App. 4th 462,489, 84 CaL. Rptr.2d 14 arising from gambling activity under any legal theory. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 15 lawsuit, which "arises out of the offering and accepting of legal racing wagers" 16 (Compl. ~ I)-i.e., gambling-in California and is governed by California law, is 18 Second, Plaintiff does not allege-nor could he allege-any legally cognizable 19 injur. Plaintiff 20 wager, and that is exactly what he received. Plaintiff 21 he would have won but for any alleged defect in the tickets he received. Indeed, any 24 CaL. Rptr. 294 (1987). For this reason, claims arising out of 25 heard not by the courts, but by the California Horse Racing Board ("CHR"), the 26 agency responsible for the regulation of 27 the alleged conduct that is the subject of Plaintiffs Complaint has already been fully Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP CASE NO. CV 08-5121-GHK (CWx) Case 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW Document 7 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 11 of 34 2 Exhibit A to the Declaration of 3 Third, undeterred by the fact that his baseless claims fail as an individual matter, 4 Plaintiff goes even fuher, purporting to bring suit on behalf of a nationwide class of 5 bettors. But his class allegations face their own insurmountable hurdles. Indeed, the 6 choice of law issues themselves would preclude class certification. Plaintiff even 7 purports to include in the class bettors in a State where Quick Pick bets are illegal and the inherent 8 thus could not have taken place (Texas). Moreover, because of 9 speculativeness and uncertainty posed by Plaintiffs claims, it would be impossible for 10 any putative class member to prove injury and establish standing and thus impossible 13 member to attempt to determine which races they bet on, whether the last-posting 15 included the last-posting horse. Accordingly, Plaintiffs putative class could never be 17 Finally, even if California substantive law permitted a cause of action to recover 18 gambling losses (which it does not), Plaintiffs Complaint fails as a matter of 19 the following sufficient and additional reasons: (1) Plaintiffs cause of action for 20 breach of contract fails because his allegations are insufficient to create a contract 21 between Plaintiff and Scientific Games; (2) unjust enrichment is not a legally 22 cognizable claim under California law and, even if 23 one for restitution, Plaintiff 24 entitlement to this relief; (3) Plaintiff failed to plead-and cannot plead-his cause of action for 25 action for fraud with the required particularity; and (4) Plaintiffs causes of 26 fraud, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hearing Transcript
    R O U G H D R A F T Senate Committee on Governmental Organization Roderick D. Wright, Chair Examining the Public Policy and Fiscal Implications Related to the Authorization of Intrastate Internet Poker in California Tuesday, February 9, 2010 State Capitol, Room 4203 SENATOR RODERICK D. WRIGHT: ...with our informational hearing. I’ll be the referee. I want everybody to obey my commands at all times. There will be no saving by the bell, except after Round 10. After Round 10, you will be able to be saved by the bell. No rabbit punches. And again, obey my commands at all times. (Pause) Okay. I’m going to give a couple more minutes for our members to get here. At this morning’s presentation, the part of Steve Rittvo will be played by—Mr. Rittvo got stuck in snow in Washington, D.C., so he will not be here this morning. Again, as you can see from the agenda, we have kind of an ambitious agenda, but I think it’s necessary for the scope of what we’re trying to do. We’re going to schedule to try to have approximately a 30-minute break, and we hope we can wrap up by about 4 o’clock. Now given the nature of what we’re doing, we’re going to set up a little pool as to what time we get out. (Laughter) You know, depending on who wins the pool, maybe we can give the money to somebody’s charity. But you can’t filibuster in order to extend the time if you bet on one side or the other.
    [Show full text]
  • Wake Forest Journal of Business and Intellectual Property Law
    WAKE FOREST JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ! VOLUME!14! WINTER!2014! NUMBER!2! THE TECHNOLOGICAL AND BUSINESS EVOLUTION OF MACHINE-BASED GAMBLING IN AMERICA Darren A. Prum† and Carlin McCrory† I. INTRODUCTION. ............................................................. 237! II. HISTORICAL ROOTS OF GAMBLING IN THE UNITED STATES ............................................................................. 239! A.!THE THREE WAVES OF GAMBLING ........................... 240! B.!GAMBLING ON NATIVE AMERICAN RESERVATIONS . 250! III. MACHINE-BASED GAMING ........................................ 254! A.!SLOT MACHINES ........................................................ 254! B.!PLAYERS’ POOLS, BINGO MACHINES, AND VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS ................................................. 260! 1.!Players’ Pools .......................................................... 260! 2.!Class II Machines .................................................... 261! 3.!Video Lottery Terminals .......................................... 264! IV. APPROACHES TO THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF GAMING ........................................................................... 265! A.!CASINO GAMING ........................................................ 266! B.!NATIVE AMERICAN GAMING ..................................... 267! C.!RACINOS .................................................................... 270! V. LEGAL ISSUES AND ANALYSIS .................................... 271! A.!DECEIT ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Flynt V. Harris Complaint 11.30.2016.Pdf
    Case 2:16-cv-02831-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 1 of 25 1 PAUL J. CAMBRIA, JR. (State Bar No. 177957) ERIN E. MCCAMPBELL 2 [email protected] [email protected] 3 LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 4 1631 West Beverly Blvd., Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90026 5 Telephone: (323) 883-1807 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 Larry C. Flynt, Haig Kelegian, Sr., 8 and Haig T. Kelegian, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO BRANCH 10 LARRY C. FLYNT, HAIG KELEGIAN, SR., 11 and HAIG T. KELEGIAN, JR., 12 Plaintiffs, vs. CIVIL CASE NO. 13 14 KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL of the STATE of 15 CALIFORNIA, WAYNE QUINT, JR., in his official capacity as the CHIEF of the 16 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT of JUSTICE, BUREAU of GAMBLING CONTROL, an COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 17 agency of the STATE of CALIFORNIA, and AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF JIM EVANS, TIFFANY E. CONKLIN, 18 ROGER DUNSTAN, LAUREN HAMMOND, 19 and TRANG TO, in their official capacities as members of the CALIFORNIA GAMBLING 20 CONTROL COMMISSION, an agency of the STATE of CALIFORNIA, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 Plaintiffs Larry C. Flynt, Haig Kelegian, Sr., and Haig T. Kelegian, Jr. 26 27 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by their undersigned attorneys, bring the instant civil 28 action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and allege as follows: -1- COMPLAINT Case 2:16-cv-02831-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 11/30/16 Page 2 of 25 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. This is a civil action wherein Plaintiffs pray for a declaratory judgment and a 3 permanent injunction to restrain and enjoin the named Defendants, as well as their 4 5 agents, employees, and representatives, from acting under color of state law to 6 deprive Plaintiffs of their rights, privileges, and immunities secured to them by the 7 8 United States Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • V. List of References
    LIST OF REFERENCES General Gambling Information Abt, V., Smith, J., and Christiansen, E. The Business of International Gaming Institute, University of Nevada, Las Risk: Commercial Gambling in Mainstream America. Vegas. The Gaming Industry: Introduction and Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas (1985). Perspectives. New York: John Wiley & Sons (1996). Minnesota Planning. Minnesota Gambling 1993. St. Paul, Blakey, G. and Kurland, H. Development of the Federal MN: Minnesota Planning (May 1993). Law of Gambling. Cornell Law Review, 63:923 (1978). Kusyszyn, Igor. “The Psychology of Gambling,” Annals of Brenner, R. and Brenner, G. Gambling and Speculation: A the American Academy of Political and Social Science Theory, a History and a Future of Some Human Decisions. 474:133-145 (July 1984). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press (1990). Public Agenda. Gambling: Is it a Problem? What Should Christiansen, E. The United States Gross Annual Wager. We Do? An Issue Book for National Issues Forums. International Gaming & Wagering Business. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company (1998) Cozic, C. and Winters, P. (eds.) Gambling. San Diego, Rose, I. Gambling and the Law. Los Angeles: Gambling CA: Greenhaven Press (1995). Times (1986). Davis, Bertha. Gambling in America: A Growth Industry. Rose, I. The Impact of American Laws on Foreign Legal An Impact Book. New York: Franklin Watts (1992). Gambling, New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law, 8(1):129-166 (1986). Detlefsen, Robert R. Wagers of Sin. Reason, pp. 24-30 (December 1997). Rose, I. The Rise and Fall of the Third Wave: Gambling Will Be Outlawed in Forty Years. In Eadington (ed.) Detlefsen, Robert R.
    [Show full text]
  • Allow New Types of Gambling in California. Initiative Constitutional Amendment
    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Initiatives California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives 8-6-2018 Allow New Types of Gambling in California. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ca_ballot_inits Recommended Citation Allow New Types of Gambling in California. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. California Initiative 1854 (2018). https://repository.uchastings.edu/ca_ballot_inits/2131 This Initiative is brought to you for free and open access by the California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Initiatives by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. August 16, 2018 Initiative 18-0003 (Amdt. #1) The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: ALLOWS NEW TYPES OF GAMBLING IN CALIFORNIA. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Allows federally recognized Native American tribes to operate roulette and craps games on tribal lands, subject to compacts negotiated by the Governor and ratified by the Legislature. Allows licensed gambling establishments, such as card rooms, to conduct on-site sports wagering and to operate Nevada-style card games, and may result in authorization of sports wagering on tribal lands because of federal law. Prohibits Governor from approving gaming on newly acquired off-reservation tribal lands and negotiating gaming compacts with non-federally recognized tribes. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unclear net fiscal impact, as it would depend primarily on how the measure is interpreted and implemented as well as the extent to which businesses and members of the public participate in the new gaming activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Voter Information Guide for 2000, Primary
    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Propositions California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives 2000 Voter Information Guide for 2000, Primary Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/ca_ballot_props Recommended Citation Voter Information Guide for 2000, Primary (2000). http://repository.uchastings.edu/ca_ballot_props/1188 This Proposition is brought to you for free and open access by the California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Propositions by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BALPAM COVER NO PROPOSITION 24 FILE CONTENTS Pages Introduction Legislative Constitutional Amendment Prop. 1A Gambling on Tribal Lands. .......................................................................... 4 – 7 Bond Acts Prop. 12 Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000. (The Villaraigosa-Keeley Act). ................. 8 – 11 Prop. 13 Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act. ................................................................................. 12 – 15 Prop. 14 California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000. .................................... 16 – 19 Prop. 15 The Hertzberg-Polanco Crime Laboratories Construction Bond Act of 1999...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Toward Consumer Protection in the Gambling Industry Kurt Eggert
    Maryland Law Review Volume 63 | Issue 2 Article 3 Truth in Gaming: Toward Consumer Protection in the Gambling Industry Kurt Eggert Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Consumer Protection Law Commons, and the Gaming Commons Recommended Citation Kurt Eggert, Truth in Gaming: Toward Consumer Protection in the Gambling Industry, 63 Md. L. Rev. 217 (2004) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol63/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARYLAND LAW REVIEW VOLUME 63 2004 NUMBER 2 © Copyright Maryland Law Review, Inc. 2004 Articles TRUTH IN GAMING: TOWARD CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE GAMBLING INDUSTRY KURT EGGERT* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 218 II. THE RAPID EXPANSION OF LEGAL GAMBLING IN THE UNITED STATES ............................................ 221 III. THE SCOPE OF PROBLEM GAMBLING ....................... 224 IV. CALCULATING THE AVERAGE PRICE OF A WAGER .......... 232 V. THE ABSENCE OF EFFECTIVE PRICE DISCLOSURE FOR SLOT MACHINES ................................................. 235 VI. MANY GAMBLERS, INCLUDING PROBLEM AND PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLERS, WOULD LIKELY USE AND BENEFIT FROM GAMBLING PRICE INFORMATION IF IT WERE PROVIDED EFFECTIVELY .................................... 244 A. Informational Regulation of Gambling.................. 245 B. The Command and Control Approach to the Regulation of Gam bling............................................ 246 C. The Laissez-FaireApproach to the Regulation of Gam bling............................................ 248 * © Kurt Eggert, 2004. Associate Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law. J.D., University of Califor- nia-Berkeley (Boalt Hall).
    [Show full text]
  • General Background Gambling in California
    General Background Gambling in California California’s state law does not specifically make gambling legal or illegal: rather, it makes certain forms of gambling illegal. Much of the basic framework of gaming in California has been enacted by the people through constitutional amendments rather than by the Legislature. The State Lottery was enacted through a constitutional amendment as was horse racing, Indian gaming and charitable gaming. The Constitution specifically prohibits Nevada and New Jersey-type casino gaming on non-tribal lands. Tribal casinos began to proliferate after an amendment to the state constitution in 2000. Card rooms began operation before then and have since seen moratoriums on expansion. California authorizes pari- mutuel, Internet and phone wagering and exchange wagering on horse racing, although exchange wagering is not yet operational. With a population larger than Canada, California not only accounts for the largest single economy in the United States but is also one of the largest gaming markets in the world. Traditionally, California served as a major feeder market for Nevada's casinos, but over the past 20 years, California has become one of the nation’s largest gaming jurisdictions with Las Vegas inspired tribal casinos. Under current law, state regulation of gambling, with the exception of activities regulated by the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) and the State Lottery, is the responsibility of the California Gambling Control Commission (CGCC) and the Bureau of Gambling Control within the Department of Justice (Bureau). CGCC is responsible for setting policy, establishing regulations, making determinations of suitability for gaming employees and other individuals and entities, issuing licenses, acting as the administrator of gaming revenues deposited into the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund (SDF) and the trustee over the revenues deposited into the Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF), and administering the provisions of the Gambling Control Act and the Tribal-State Gaming Compacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Gambling with Development: Casino Capitalism in South Africa and on Indian Lands in California
    Gambling with Development: Casino Capitalism in South Africa and on Indian Lands in California Jeffrey J Sallaz Department of Sociology University of California Berkeley Table of Contents (And Proposed Chapter Structure) 1 – Introduction. 2 – Theoretical lit review. - The State, Capital, and Legitimacy - Gambling and Modernity 3 – History. - Colonialism in South Africa and the United States - Early Attempts at Independent Development 4 – Initial legalization. - South Africa - California 5 – Macro-structure of Industry. - South Africa - California 6 – Ethnographies of Industry Micro-structure - Management Structures - Labor Process - Physical Sites - Marketing 7 – Conclusion. 1 Introduction Casino gambling1 has traditionally represented a “pariah industry,” outlawed in all but the most distant, sparsely-populated locales and, even then, strictly regulated to prevent growth in both supply and demand(Skolnik 1978). While the rationale behind such prohibition and stigmatization has varied—from religious rejections of the immorality and irrationality of gambling to public concern over the proliferation of organized and street crime around casinos themselves (Reith 1999)—the need for casino operators to justify their existence, activities and operations has remained constant. In the words of Meyer (1977), a gambling industry represents an extreme case of an institutional field which must produce and disseminate myths legitimating its practices. Despite such stigmatized status, the past decade has witnessed a vast and rapid expansion of the casino industry throughout both the U.S. and world—the number of U.S. states permitting casinos increased from 2 to 27 from 1988 to 1999, while the number of countries increased from 77 to 109 (Nevada Gaming Control Board; Bear Stearns 2000; Eadington 1999; Thompson 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Gambling in California-1997.Pdf
    Gambling in California By Roger Dunstan January 1997 CRB-97-003 Acknowledgments A report such as this depends upon the assistance of a number of other people both inside and outside of the California State Library. Special thanks goes to Trina Dangberg King and Pam O'Quin and the entire Information Services Section of the California State Library. Among those outside who helped, I would like to thank William Eadington, University of Nevada, Reno; I. Nelson Rose, Whittier College; staff of the Attorney General's office, particularly Tom Gede, Brenda Jahns, and Don Pressly; Chuck Smithers and Patty Urone of the California State Lottery Commission; Roy Wood of the California Horse Racing Board; and others who requested anonymity. Any errors and omissions are, of course, my responsibility. Contents I. Gambling in the United States II. History of Gambling in the United States II-1 III. Lotteries IV. Indian Gaming V. Gambling in California VI. Regulation of Gambling VII. Why Do People Gamble? VIII. Why Do People Gamble Too Much? IX. Economic Impacts of Gambling X. Politics and Gambling XI. Gambling and Crime XII. Outlook and Options I. Gambling in the United States "Gambling is inevitable. No matter what is said or done by advocates or opponents of gambling in all its various forms, it is an activity that is practiced, or tacitly endorsed, by a substantial majority of Americans." -- Commission on the Review of National Policy toward Gambling, 1976, p.1. In 1973, the Commission on the Review of National Policy toward Gambling was created to study gambling in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Gambling in the Golden State 1998 Forward
    Gambling in the Golden State 1998 Forward By Charlene Wear Simmons, Ph.D. Assistant Director ISBN 1-58703-137-X Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1 A FAST GROWING AND PROFITABLE INDUSTRY ........................................................... 1 STATE REGULATION....................................................................................................... 2 ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND SOCIAL COSTS .................................................................... 2 Problem and Pathological Gambling ........................................................................ 3 Crime .......................................................................................................................... 5 Public Revenues ......................................................................................................... 6 AN EVOLVING INDUSTRY ............................................................................................... 6 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................. 7 PARTICIPATION IN GAMBLING ACTIVITIES .................................................................. 9 WHO GAMBLES? .......................................................................................................... 11 REGULATION ................................................................................................................ 13 Electronic Technology
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State
    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Propositions California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives 2004 Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/ca_ballot_props Recommended Citation Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. California Proposition 70 (2004). http://repository.uchastings.edu/ca_ballot_props/1232 This Proposition is brought to you for free and open access by the California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Propositions by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BALLOT MEASURE SUMMARY PROP PROP Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. Initiative Funding. Initiative Statute. 69 70 Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Summary Summary Requires collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from Upon tribe’s request, Governor must execute 99-year compact. others arrested for or charged with specified crimes, and sub- Tribes contribute percentage of net gaming income to state mission to state DNA database. Provides for funding. Fiscal funds, in exchange for expanded, exclusive tribal casino gam- Impact: Net state cost to process DNA samples of potentially ing. Fiscal Impact: Unknown effect on payments to the state nearly $20 million annually when costs are fully realized. Local from Indian tribes. The potential increase or decrease in these costs likely more than fully offset by revenues, with the additional payments could be in the tens of millions to over a hundred mil- revenues available for other DNA-related activities.
    [Show full text]