Scott Hasting
West Flagler Associates, the same plaintiffs in their Florida-based litigation whose perspective they opposed to intervene in a federal suit opposing an added party.
The stance taken by West Flaglers opposition resembles that of Seminole Tribe’s opposition against its inclusion as parties when filing for intervention with regards to sports betting lawsuit filed on behalf Secretary and Department Interior under Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
West Flagler Associates want to control just who they are facing off with in court.
A two-part argument on sports betting in Florida
The motion from West Flagler associates makes two arguments related to FL Sports Betting: the first argues that Seminole Tribe of Florida should not be allowed to intervene, and second states how their opposition is expected as “a judge will make sure there’s no bias.”
The first argument is that the West Flagler plaintiffs argue, and they claim under Rule 24 (A) of Federal Rules Civil Procedure for their requested intervention with this case.
This Tribal Court does not have jurisdiction over them because they aren’t one or more members within its borders who are being complained about by someone else in another District if there’s no rule against it; but specifically applies only when special circumstances exist such as where there’s been some wrongdoing on behalf ofIndian Tribes themselves – which we don’t see here at all!
