Bettor Racing, Inc. v. National Indian Gaming Commission et al

Filing 81

ORDER granting 78 Motion Making Amended Judgment a Final Judgment. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 1/7/2015. (KC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BETTOR RACING, INC., and J. RANDY
GALLO,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING
COMMISSION,

CIV. 13-4051-KES

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
MAKING AMENDED JUDGMENT A
FINAL JUDGMENT

Defendant,
and
FLANDREAU SANTEE SIOUX TRIBE,
Intervenor.
Plaintiffs, Bettor Racing, Inc. and J. Randy Gallo, move this court
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) for a determination that there is no just
reason for delay, thereby making the amended judgment filed on October 22,
2014, final and immediately appealable. Defendant, National Indian Gaming
Commission, and intervenor, Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, take no position in
response to the motion.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), a judgment that does not fully and
finally resolve all claims against all parties may still be appealed if the court
expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay and directs entry of
judgment. See Loudner v. United States, 330 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1081 (D.S.D.
2004). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides:
When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether
as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—or
when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a
final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or
parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just

reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however
designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights
and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action
as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time
before entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the
parties’ rights and liabilities.
First, the court must determine that it is dealing with a final judgment.
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 3 (1980). Second, if this
court determines that the judgment is in fact final, then the court must
determine whether there is reason for delaying an appeal of certain claims. Id.
The following factors should be considered when determining whether
certification should be granted:
(1) the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated
claims; (2) the possibility that the need for review might or might
not be mooted by future developments in the district court; (3) the
possibility that the reviewing court may be obliged to consider the
same issue a second time; (4) the presence or absence of a claim or
counterclaim which could result in set off against the judgment
sought to be made final; (5) miscellaneous factors such as delay,
economic solvency considerations, shortening the time of trial,
frivolity of competing claims, expense and the like.
Hayden v. McDonald, 719 F.2d 266, 269 (8th Cir. 1983).
Here, this matter meets the requirements. The amended judgment is a
final judgment. The claims made by Bettor Racing against the NIGC are
tantamount to an appeal of the NIGC’s decision affirming the notice of violation
and notice of proposed civil fine assessment. Because the court concluded that
Bettor Racing did not meet the statutory burden for overturning the NIGC’s
final decision, this court entirely adjudicated the claims raised by Bettor
Racing in its appeal of the NIGC decision.

2

Next turning to the Hayden factors, the court finds these factors are met.
The adjudicated (APA) and unadjudicated (non-APA) claims are strongly
connected. If the court of appeals reverses this court’s amended judgment,
certain unresolved non-APA claims may be mooted. Thus, the ultimate
termination of the litigation would be advanced by the court of appeals
consideration of these issues now. And once decided, the court of appeals
would not be obliged to consider the same issue a second time. The NIGC’s
notice of proposed civil fine assessment imposes a fine that is to be paid to the
NIGC, not to the Tribe. This fine stands independent of any claim the Tribe
makes for damages in the non-APA claims. Thus, the remaining non-APA
claims would not result in a set-off against the amended judgment Bettor
Racing seeks to appeal. Finally, it is in the interests of justice, judicial
economy, and efficiency to permit an appeal of the NIGC’s final decision at this
time. There is no just reason for delay. As a result, the court grants Bettor
Racing and Gallo’s motion and directs that the amended judgment entered on
October 22, 2014, is a final order as to the APA claim.
Good cause appearing, it is
ORDERED that the motion (Docket 78) is granted. The amended
judgment filed on October 22, 2014, is a final order, and there is no just reason
for delay.
Dated January 7, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3