A new entry appeared on the docket report before Judge James Smith of the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (YPIT) had not provided adequate grounds for him to issue a temporary restraining order against the initiation of legalized sports betting in Arizona.
As Labor Day weekend approached, lawyers representing the Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona and the Quechan Tribe of the Ft. Yuma Indian Reservation, also known as the Intervenors, submitted a notice of their intention to intervene and oppose the plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
The plaintiffs objected to the treatment but failed to secure injunctive relief. The appellate court system in Arizona and Nevada now seems to be the most suitable next step.
Requirements for the motion to proceed
As the process of acquiring a temporary restraining order, which was unsuccessful in the superior court on Monday, progresses to its next stage, the motion to intervene revealed intriguing perceptions of the lawsuit filed by the YPIT from other tribes in Arizona.
The Intervenors alleged that they, along with 18 Arizona and 22 federally recognized tribes, have been in negotiations over the recently amended gaming compact for more than five years. As a result of this agreement, legal sports betting in the Grand Canyon State will begin on September 9.
The Intervenors are among the 10 nations that acquired sports betting certificates. In addition, the Quechan Tribe of the Ft. Yuma Indian Reservation collaborated with the Kindred Group, while TwinSpires partnered with the Tonto Apache tribe of Arizona.
The Intervenors asserted that they had substantial interests in the dispute as licensed events.
a unique narrative?
According to the Intervenors, the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (YPIT) attempts to eliminate five years of labor from 20 out of Arizona’s 22 tribes. They assert that the YPIT was given the opportunity to participate in the agreements and was even encouraged to do so. However, the Yavapai-Prescott decided not to.
The Intervenors argue that the YPIT has alternative options, but not as a consequence of this case.
Instead, the YPIT can negotiate with Gov. Doug Ducey. As previously mentioned, the Intervenors assert that YPIT’s solution is in federal court under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). They believe that state court is not the right venue for hearing the plaintiff’s grievances.
Debate initiated by intervening nations in Arizona
The Intervenors state:
“YPIT approaches this Court with questionable intentions, seeking substantial relief despite deliberately avoiding crucial and sincere minor discussions. This avoidance was done either to gain from the objective or to initiate a lawsuit against the State.”
The Intervenors argue that the court should not entertain the claims but rather should determine this case based on jurisdictional reasons because of the YPIT’s unsuccessful efforts to secure a temporary restraining order.
Defendants must erect four points in Arizona
In Arizona, a plaintiff must prove four points to obtain a temporary restraining order or initial injunctive relief.
- a high likelihood of success based on virtues,
- If the desired indulgence is not given, the complainant may incur devastating damage that cannot be rectified with troubles.
- The plaintiff benefits from a resolution of difficulties.
- Public policy supports the lawsuit.
According to the intervenors, the claimant fails at every stage.
the highway or a governmental route
The motion stipulates that the tribe, YPIT, has a legal right to pursue gaming rights through the IGRA process if they so desire.
The Intervenors argue that the YPIT will likely fail to achieve their desired outcome from the Superior Court, and in all likelihood, an Arizona appeals court or Arizona Supreme Court once the process ends. However, if HB 2772 is deemed null and void, the negotiation process would have to restart from the beginning.
Perhaps you actually have a good chance of winning?
The Intervenors conclude their discussion by assessing the public plan implications of YPIT’s success. Their study highlights that:
“YPIT” always maintains that it is in the public interest to halt any infringement of a party’s constitutional rights. However, as there have been no violations of any party’s constitutional rights, this broad constitutional principle has no bearing on the current situation. Consequently, public policy does not support the relief requested by “YPIT”. (internal citations omitted).
B in the manifest
The chair of the Tonto Apache Tribe, Calvin Johnson, made a declaration in the motion to act. Johnson stated in his declaration that he began negotiating changes to the tribal-state gaming agreement dating back to 2003 in late 2016.
Johnson asserted that he had sent an email to Ernest Jones Sr., who was the president of YPIT at the time, inviting him to a meeting where they would discuss proposals for some of Arizona’s smaller games tribes and strategies for small amendment. Although Jones refused the invitation, he made a reciprocal offer for Johnson and Chairwoman Jeri DeCola to meet with the YPIT management in March 2017.
According to YPIT, the declaration of the meeting stated:
“If other tribes managed to negotiate a compact amendment with the State successfully and YPIT disagreed with the terms of the agreement reached by the other tribal parties involved in the negotiations, the latter would simply sue the state.”
Who is scheduled to appear in an Arizona gaming lawsuit?
As Judge Smith predicted earlier next week, it seems the next obvious step for the Yavapai – Prescott is to approach the appellate judge.
At the time of writing, the method employed by the Division One Court of Appeals did not reflect the tribe’s filing of such elegance.
Anticipate it right away because the sports betting release is scheduled for two days from now.
Related papers
