Update on Casino Legal Battle

There are at least two sides to a story.

Council Member Albertson provided this interpretation at the last council meeting of the on-going dispute with the Point Defiance Casino: “… I don’t know whether people know it or not, but the casino lawsuit against the town, originally there was a motion for an injunction to prevent us from putting that tax into effect, or collecting that tax… The court moved that hearing date to October 3rd. The casino gave up on it and did not try to pursue that. And I’ll just tell you that it’s my opinion that the reason was because our town attorney wrote a brief that eviscerated the position of the casino. I can just tell you as a lawyer it was a joy to read, and I think when the other party doesn’t even bother to go into court to maintain the position that they originally took, it tells you a lot how good a job he’s done. So I think we all owe Mr. Britton thanks for the good work that he did in the casino case…”

I had an interesting conversation with Joan Mell last week, the attorney who is representing the casino. She confirmed they did strike (canceled) the October 3rd hearing two weeks prior to the scheduled date. This is an injuction request. Injunctions are supposed to be a quick action designed to get an issue before a judge for an impartial assessment. In this case, the casino was asking the court to assess if Ruston’s gambling tax increase was legal and to stop the town from collecting that tax until the issue could be reviewed by the court.

Since the casino has shut down all its gambling operations, the injunction request is a mute point. Ms. Mell said it was a waste of everyone’s time and energy to pursue an injunction on a tax that was no longer being collected. She was concerned when she received declarations from Ruston council members a few days before the now canceled hearing. She was able to reach the town attorney on October 2nd to be sure he had checked the court's calendar, since he was still pursuing the issue.

As you recall, the original hearing had been postponed because the judge wanted a certified transcript of the council meeting when this tax had been passed. At issue was the council vote. The casino felt that the 3 to 1 vote to waive the second reading of the tax ordinance violated the council’s own rules. The town attorney refused to confirm what the vote count had been.

The audio recording provided by the town was not adequate for the judge, but Ruston does not provide transcripts of their meetings. The meeting minutes had not been approved at the time of this hearing. Ms. Mell did have a court reporter transcribe what was on the recording in preparation for the next hearing. But it’s unclear if that would have been enough for the judge since it was not a certified transcript of the meeting, which the town would have to provide.

The town has now moved for summary judgment in this issue, with prejudice. I’m not an attorney, but I think that means the judge is being asked to not only confirm Ruston’s gambling tax increase is legal, but that the casino’s injunction request was frivolous. You can read the town attorney’s brief here, and other related documents here.

One of the town’s arguments is that their council rules are not binding because they were passed as a resolution, not an ordinance. Ms. Mell points to Ruston’s code that may indicate otherwise. She also provided a discussion of a similar case in Spokane.

This all makes for interesting reading. The town attorney makes some compelling arguments in his brief, as does Ms. Mell. There are at least two sides to a story. It will be interesting to see which side of story wins on this one.