• COVID-19 Resources
  • Administrative Law
  • Liquor Law – ABC – OLCC
  • Employment Law
  • GAMING: Internet & Casino
  • Land Use
  • Personal Injury & Wrongful Death
Call Us Now: 800.405.4222
Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson - SSJ Law
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Administrative Law
    • Alcohol and Liquor Law: ABC | OLCC
    • Employment Law
    • GAMING: Internet & Casino
    • Land Use
    • Personal Injury & Wrongful Death
  • Our Team
  • Articles
  • Community Service
  • Resources
  • Contact Us
    • The Firm
    • AV Rating
    • Client List
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Casinos might need more than games to keep gamblers as competition grows

in Business Law, Indian Gaming

Sacramento’s Indian casino scene could soon get more crowded.

With two casino projects on the horizon in an already bustling market, tribal operators old and new will have to offer entertainment and other amenities to retain the loyalty of customers in what experts say is a gaming market that will soon reach a breaking point.

“There are a finite number of gamblers,” said Rich Hoffman, CEO of the Jackson Rancheria Casino Resort in Amador County. “The more times you split that pie up, the fewer customers you have.”

The federal government last month agreed to take land into trust for the Wilton Rancheria tribe, setting the stage for a $400 million casino, convention center and hotel in suburban Elk Grove. To the north of Sacramento, the Enterprise Rancheria is building its own casino in Yuba City, though construction work has stopped due to lawsuits from rivals including Thunder Valley Casino Resort, 23 miles to the south in Lincoln. Thunder Valley argues that Enterprise is trying to build a casino on land that is not considered its ancestral territory. An Enterprise spokesman declined comment.

The proposed casinos’ proximity to major population centers likely will draw players away from existing establishments since customers are largely swayed by travel time, experts say. The Enterprise casino will be adjacent to the Sleep Train Amphitheater in Yuba City, while the Wilton casino will sit on 35 acres off Highway 99, south of the Elk Grove Auto Mall.

By comparison, patrons must take a winding country road to Brooks to play at the Cache Creek Casino Resort in Yolo County. Likewise, the Red Hawk Casino is located in sparsely populated El Dorado County past Shingle Springs, although it is right off Highway 50. Among those in business, Thunder Valley arguably has the best location out of the three, due to its proximity to Highway 65 and Interstate 80 in affluent Placer County.

When and if the new casinos open, they are expected to take much of their business from regional competitors.

“Each of those has that potential to crowd the market and negatively impact other facilities in the area,” said Alan Meister, a gaming industry expert and principal economist at Irvine-based Nathan Associates. “There can be a break point where there is too much. I don’t know when that break point is.”

He pointed to the fortunes of River Rock Casino in Sonoma County, which saw business drop after the glitzy Graton Casino and Resort opened near Santa Rosa in 2013. Graton, which is managed by Station Casinos of Las Vegas, underwent an expansion in November, adding 200 hotel rooms and a 10,000-square-foot spa, according to spokeswoman Lori Nelson. It previously did not have a hotel.

Nelson declined to talk about Graton’s strategy. Representatives for Cache Creek and Red Hawk also declined to discuss their marketing and business efforts.

Generally speaking, the national casino market is saturated, said Lucy Dadayan, a senior policy analyst at the Rockefeller Institute of Government who has studied both commercial and Indian casinos. She said casinos are “cannibalizing” each other in several markets. Part of the reason is an emerging clientele of millenials who don’t want to blow their money at the slot machine or blackjack table.

“Millenials spend more on other types of entertainment like movies and travel,” Dadayan said. “The Internet, social media – those are all distractions.”

Tribes, however, haven’t been deterred by the headwinds facing the gambling market. With their commercial partners, many of whom are based in Las Vegas, a number of Indian communities are actively looking to jump into gaming for the first time.

Raymond Hitchcock, chairman of the Wilton Rancheria, argues that there is room for a new casino in the region. His tribe’s Elk Grove proposal would make it the only Indian casino in Sacramento County.

“Competition is a good thing,” he said, noting that the casino will draw from 2.5 million people who live in and around the county.

Construction has not started on the Elk Grove project, which is also facing legal hurdles from opponents that include a group connected to local card rooms.

Doug Elmets, spokesman for Thunder Valley, said the property has not been affected by the opening of Graton, noting that 70 percent of its customers hail from the greater Sacramento region. The casino saw nearly 6 million visitors in 2016, according to Elmets.

“What’s required of a successful casino is creative marketing,” said Elmets, calling Thunder Valley a “destination” with its myriad of dining and entertainment options.

Thunder Valley, owned by the United Auburn Indian Community, is in the process of adding hotel room capacity through furnishing three floors that were intentionally left incomplete in 2010, due to lackluster demand during the recession.

Indian gaming in California has steadily expanded over the years, with tribes building larger and fancier destination resorts that resemble those in Las Vegas. The state today has 59 casinos and ranks behind only Nevada – with 270 casinos – in terms of gaming revenues, according to the Rockefeller Institute of Government. The financial health of individual properties is unknown, however, since California does not release such information. Casino owners are hesitant to share figures due to the fierce rivalry for customers.

The rise in the number of Northern California casinos directly correlates to the falling fortunes of commercial casinos in Reno. After maintaining a steady $1 billion in revenue annually from 2000 to 2007, Reno area casinos lost ground during the recession and have not recovered. In 2016, they raked in about $800 million, according to the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

“It hasn’t really come back because of competition from Sacramento,” said David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “You don’t have to drive up the mountain to go gamble.”

While Reno has seen its casino industry wither, Las Vegas has fared better due to its diverse array of attractions such as shows, hotels, shopping and night clubs that draw a wide variety of tourists. Gaming revenues on the Las Vegas Strip hit $6.8 billion in 2007, before plummeting during the recession, according to the research center. The strip casinos have recovered – to the tune of $6.3 billion last year.

But for many gamblers, driving to an Indian casino is more attractive than traveling to another state. “Distance matters,” Meister said of the location of individual Indian properties.

Elk Grove resident Ampee Bacon, 67, said she liked playing at Thunder Valley because it is an easy drive from her house. But when Wilton’s facility opens in Elk Grove, she plans to patronize that casino even more, though she is opposed to the project.

“I don’t want a casino in my backyard,” Bacon said, as she walked into Thunder Valley with sister Mila, who is visiting from the Philippines.

Aside from the short travel time, California casinos need to “prove” their added value in order to compete with each other, according to Ira Kalb, assistant professor of clinical marketing at the University of Southern California Marshall School of Business. This could come in the form of amenities like a spa, international buffet or fancy steakhouse.

“If you want to get the wider market – the couples and the families – you’re going to have the amenities,” Kalb said

Article Written By: Richard Chang @RichardYChang

Read the full article on the LA Weekly website here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article140342308.html

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 RobR https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png RobR2017-04-04 22:40:272017-04-04 22:40:27Casinos might need more than games to keep gamblers as competition grows

SSJ Law weighs in on upcoming daily fantasy sports decision

in Fantasy Sports, Indian Gaming

LOS ANGELES
Dec 4th, 2015
Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson, known in the daily fantasy sports and eSports world as SSJ Law, has weighed in on the upcoming decision, expected to come down as early as next week, from Judge Manuel Mendez regarding the legality of daily fantasy sports under New York law.  The lawsuit follows the announcement from New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman that DraftKings and FanDuel are operating unlawfully in New York.

SSJ Law’s managing partner, Stephen Solomon, stated that, “It would be unfortunate for all citizens of New York if daily fantasy sports is banned because it not only provides entertainment for those who play, but also could bring in substantial revenue for the state if appropriately taxed and licensed.”

Supporters of New York’s response have noted that these operations have made headlines in the last few weeks concerning the alleged use of insider information by an employee of one operator to win $350,000.

But according to Ryan Kroll, a partner in the firm’s gaming law practice, “The decision to shut down these operators appears to be a knee-jerk reaction by the government that indicates an inability to see the forest through the trees.  As with any emerging industry, public concerns will arise, but they do not necessarily require a state to eradicate an entire form of entertainment, especially given the proven ability of governments to regulate alcohol, card clubs, and now marijuana.”

It appears that Massachusetts’s approach is consistent with SSJ Law’s opinion. On November 19, 2015, Massachusetts announced its proposed regulations for the operation of daily fantasy sports, which include raising the minimum age of participants to 21, limiting the monthly maximum deposit to $1,000, and creating separate categories of contests for experienced and non-experienced players.

Solomon states that, “These proposed regulations aren’t perfect, but they’re a good start.  Ensuring the fairness of the game is not only in the best interest of those competing, but also in the best interest of the operators.”

Ultimately, the government’s role should be in ensuring its citizens can pursue their chosen forms of entertainment in a responsible manner and not making choices for the people.

As Kroll states, “America loves a good rags-to-riches story, and daily fantasy sports lets sports fans dream that dream.”

About SSJ Law: www.ssjlaw.com

SSJ Law focuses in vice law and representing clients in the gaming, eSports gaming, alcohol, marijuana, and gambling fields. Having conducted over 1,600 administrative hearings, SSJ Law can help any business navigate through the maze of administrative regulation and government bureaucracy. SSJ Law is actively seeking to help other businesses and can be contacted at[email protected] or [email protected]  or call (800) 405-4222.

Logo – http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20151203/293201LOGO

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ssj-law-weighs-in-on-upcoming-daily-fantasy-sports-decision-300188296.html

Source: prnewswire.com
https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2015-12-05 12:10:352015-12-05 12:10:35SSJ Law weighs in on upcoming daily fantasy sports decision

Casino license opponents fold

in Alcoholic Beverage Licensing, Indian Gaming, News

David Schwartz, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun

SAN BERNARDINO – Opponents of a liquor license for the San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino say they will not appeal a ruling that allows the gambling hall to serve alcohol in their residential neighborhood.

The decision from the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control allows the casino to continue serving beer, wine and hard liquor from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m., except when two nearby schools are in session. On those days, alcohol won’t be served until 5 p.m.

While the decision could still be appealed, many opponents said they would not.

“I’ve certainly thought about it, but I don’t have the money to do it,” said Rheba Hewitt, one of the most vocal detractors.

Opponents continue to believe the state should not allow the permanent license to be transferred from the old facility to the new one.

Alcohol, they say, contributes to the number of vagrants, drunk drivers and other people engaging in illicit behavior on their streets. But their opposition during a two-day trial in June was overruled.

Although Hewitt has received a copy of the decision, she hadn’t looked at it yet. “I’m so disgusted I didn’t read it. I knew what it’d say.”

During the hearing at Highland City Hall, residents faced off with a legal team hired by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and a legal team and staff from the Alcoholic Beverage Control.

Residents were without a lawyer.

“We were outgunned,” said Kirk Wilson, an opponent of the license.

“I don’t have the money or the time to fight it any further. I could tell when I went down to the hearing, whatever we said didn’t have much weight compared to the high-powered attorneys and government agencies that didn’t want to step on the tribe’s sovereignty,” he said. “It’s like, why bother fighting it?”

Stephen Solomon, one of the attorneys for the tribe, said, “It was a full and fair trial. The protestant had a right to have a lawyer or not have a lawyer. The judge heard the testimony, he took briefs afterward.”

Solomon, part of a Los Angeles-based firm, said there had been little evidence presented with accusations of prostitution, drug dealing and traffic associated with alcohol served at the casino.

“The tribe stood the test of reality,” he said.

San Bernardino Councilman Neil Derry, who represents the city areas around the casino, said he would not seek the City Council’s approval to fund an appeal.

“There’s certainly not the support to appeal it on the council or from most of the elected officials,” he said.

He put the cost at $50,000 to hire an attorney.

“We could appeal it to the Supreme Court, but none of my residents have that kind of money. Half are retired,” he said.

The protestants have 40 days from Sept. 15 to appeal the decision, said John Carr, spokesman for the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson are attorneys practicing in the areas of ABC law, ABC Appeals Board cases, and all related Land Use Matters such as City and County Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Police and Fire permits, Entertainment law, and Gambling Law; as well as Business and Personal Injury litigation. Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson can be reached at 800 405 4222.”

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-03 08:49:192014-03-03 08:49:19Casino license opponents fold

Racketeering Case For Gambling Casino Judgment rendered for over $2,200,000

in Criminal Law, Gaming, Indian Gaming, News

A client who wanted to purchase operation rights to a popular southland Casino, renowned for its gambling and entertainment offerings, lost hundreds of thousands of dollars of “blood money” as those rights were sold multiple times in alleged back room deals.

These deals were alleged to be between the Casino operator and certain members of the local City Council and Redevelopment Agency.

Stephen Allen Jamieson, and his partners Stephen Warren Solomon, Ralph B. Saltsman and R. Bruce Evans, alleged in the lawsuit that the client had been extorted, defrauded and was made the victim of a conspiracy between several individuals in and out of public office to commit illegal acts.

They based this allegation on their findings through massive efforts in discovery (written requests for information in the lawsuit, called interrogatories, request to produce documents, requests for admissions, and depositions [testimony obtained from witnesses under oath outside of court]) and investigation through the firm’s private investigators.

Jamieson and his partners successfully litigated this case under the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization (“RICO”) federal statutes in Los Angeles Superior Court, a Trial Court, for several years. During the course of litigation, the case went several times from the Trial Court to the Court of Appeal and back to the Trial Court.

Through the perseverance and innovative legal work by Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson we reached a valuable settlement in favor of our client shortly before the jury trial was scheduled to begin, as against some of the Defendants; and resulted in a Judgment against the remaining Defendants for over $2,200,000.

Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson are attorneys practicing in the areas of ABC law, ABC Appeals Board cases, and all related Land Use Matters such as City and County Conditional Land Use Permits, Variances, Police and Fire Permits, Entertainment Law, Gaming Law, as well as Personal Injury litigation. Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson can be contacted at 800-405-4222.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-03 08:47:112018-10-17 04:57:58Racketeering Case For Gambling Casino Judgment rendered for over $2,200,000

FROM INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY Saltsman and Solomon: Letting the genie out of the bottle?

in Indian Gaming, News

By Ralph B. Saltsman & Stephen Warren Solomon

As published in Indian Country Today – January 7, 2011

Well, do we let the genie out of the bottle? Does this genie lavish untold wealth on its owner or wreak devastation on an established treasured enterprise? By the way, to whom does this genie belong?

In California, state legislation appears from time to time allowing intrastate Internet gaming. One such bill in preliminary discussion in Sacramento and elsewhere would grant a license for Internet intrastate poker to an enterprise consisting of card clubs and Indian tribes. That license would unleash a genie co-owned by those two sets of entities. This bill would allow for online poker and not Class III gaming. What is not included in this discussion is the race track or state lottery.

Class III gaming includes card games played against the house and Las Vegas-style slot machines. In time more than one license could be issued to more than one business entity. This intrastate gaming by definition would be confined to California. Intrastate Internet poker where there is no bank and no percentage take could yield hundreds of millions of dollars.

Internet gaming may: 1) reap billions for its owners; or 2) generate a lot of excitement and
not much else; or 3) diminish the most successful gaming structure in That genie could be key to further
California – Native American land. fortune or could be the self-chosen
means of destruction of the existing
enterprise sustaining so many tribes.

Indian casinos in California are billion dollar industries. According to the National Indian Gaming Commission, California casinos had gross incomes of $7.8 billion in 2007 and $7.36 billion in 2008. No one would consciously want to dismantle or endanger those generous structures. On the other hand, who would want to ignore tomorrow’s multibillion dollar money machine that is Internet gaming?

At present there is no lawful Internet gaming in the United States. In California, through state constitutional amendment, legislation and compacts between tribe and state, Indian casinos have Class III gaming. Card clubs do not. California Indian casinos are holding the cards over the competing card clubs. This could change.

The statistical array of poker players, Internet gamblers and casino patrons is only part of the equation under debate. Regardless of what the numbers show as to who is gambling and how they are doing it, no one can seriously argue the limits and potential for intrastate California Internet gambling. Internet gaming may prove to be without easily predictable limit. But Indian tribes are wrestling with the issue of structure. One very serious argument in opposition to Internet gaming is the inclusion of card clubs into the world of tribal gaming capabilities. Card clubs are not presently part of that success story. Inclusion into an Internet gaming system of card clubs partnered with Indian tribes may be the card clubs’ first step towards intrusion into what is now the tribes’ exclusive domain.

The issue of Indian gaming exclusivity in California raises the perplexing question: Is it in the Indian nation’s best interest to allow intrastate Internet gaming to be born if it means ultimately losing the exclusivity in Class III gaming Indian Nations presently enjoy? The above referenced legislation under early discussion in California would restrict games to poker thereby preserving Indian casinos’ exclusive right to provide Class III gaming, but many in Indian country are wondering out loud if poker is but step one in a continuum of graduated legislation and constitutional amendment that will end with full Class III Internet gambling. At that point, the tribes’ exclusivity is lost, the genie has destroyed the brick and mortar enterprise that has sustained Indian tribes, and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.

On the other hand, how can Indian nations which had the foresight to create and build casino gaming allow the lucrative opportunity of Internet gaming to pass?

The argument in favor of immediate passage of state legislation permitting Internet intrastate poker, is this gaming will be restricted to poker and not Class III gaming. The sanctity of the Indian casino will be therefore undisturbed. Moreover, failure to act now will allow legal Internet intrastate poker to take off leaving the tribes behind.

Most observers believe Native American However, once allowed the financial wherewithal, cache of success and
tribes can now effectively block gaming the attendant political power, card clubs could have a platform from
legislation. further and additional Internet gaming could be modified by legislation and constitutional amendment by ballot all at card club instigation. Most observers believe Native American tribes can now effectively block gaming legislation. will that still be true when financially successful card clubs participating in a tribal-card cub Internet intrastate poker system go to the legislature and ballot proposition in the future with new laws and constitutional provision allowing Class III Internet gaming?

Those in favor of Internet intrastate poker point out that absent tribal leaders’ foresight in the 1980s and 1990s, the Las Vegas-style casinos on Indian reservation lands would not exist. That foresight now calls for action to take advantage of the computer phenomenon which will grow exponentially with or without tribal participation.

It is also true that when Native Americans won passage of state constitutional amendments and attendant legislation, and the federal government and state law adopted the machinery for Native American casinos with Class III gaming, and the tribes built those casinos, there were no billion dollar casino businesses in California to lose. Now the intricacies of the arguments are dangerous, because the stakes are high.

To some Native Americans contemplating their economic status during the mid-20th century, their memories recall deprivation without the nostalgia for those good old days. That genie could be key to further fortune or could be the self-chosen means of destruction of the existing enterprise sustaining so many Native American tribes and the communities in which those Indian casinos stand.

The decision to allow passage of legislation in California to establish lawful Internet intrastate gaming must be made wisely to protect the existing casinos and, at the same time, provide for the future.

So, do we let this genie out of the bottle? And whose genie is it?

Ralph B. Saltsman is a lawyer with Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson in Los Angeles. He has been a lawyer for 36 years, 34 of which have been in the area of land use licenses and permits. Stephen Warren Solomon practices administrative law at Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson. His expertise centers on licensing and Indian gaming and catastrophic personal injury.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-01 17:19:052014-03-01 17:19:05FROM INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY Saltsman and Solomon: Letting the genie out of the bottle?

Tribal attorneys argue California’s tribes must have a judicial remedy to enforce the provisions of the Tribal-State Gaming Compacts.

in Gaming, Indian Gaming, News

SSJLaw California Tribal Law Attorneys
Tribal attorneys say rule paves the way for state to dismiss gaming-pact cases
By Chet Barfield, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER, June 7, 2006, SignOnSanDiago.com
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060607-9999-1n7lawsuits.html

Attorneys for tribes challenging the state in disputes over California’s Indian gaming compacts say they’re being trumped by a legal defense all but guaranteed to get any such lawsuit dismissed.

The state has invoked this defense to quash four gaming-compact suits tribes have brought since 2004, including one dismissed last month by a federal judge in Sacramento.

“The state gets to dictate the meaning of every provision of this compact,” said George Forman, attorney for the Central Valley tribe whose suit over slot machine licenses was dismissed May 16. “There’s no way anyone can challenge the state’s calculations.”
At issue is a federal civil regulation called Rule 19. It requires any party deemed “necessary and indispensable” to be included as a plaintiff or defendant. If that can’t be done, case dismissed.

Most of California’s 61 tribal compacts are boilerplate agreements signed by former Gov. Gray Davis in 1999. In all four court challenges, the state has successfully argued that claims raised by the plaintiff tribe would affect others in California, making them indispensable parties.

The rule could apply to any or all of California’s 107 tribes, even those without casinos. The compacts include provisions for gaming tribes to provide revenue-sharing funds for all those that have no casinos or very small ones.

The pacts outline three steps to resolve disputes. First, either the governor or a tribe can demand “meet and confer” sessions to address a disagreement.

If that doesn’t do it, either side can request binding arbitration, but both must agree. The state has yet to arbitrate a compact dispute.

Litigation was supposed to be a last resort.

“What good is an agreement . . . if we’re not able to get a judicial determination of what it means?” asked Rincon attorney Scott Crowell, whose client tribe is appealing a compact challenge dismissed last year.

Another North County tribe, San Pasqual, filed suit in federal court May 3, contending the state is wrongly depriving Valley View Casino of more than 400 slot licenses.

Attorney Stephen Solomon said if the state invokes Rule 19, San Pasqual will argue that its suit would not deprive any other tribe of slots, licenses or revenue-sharing funds.

“This only adds to (the license pool); it doesn’t take away from anybody,” he said. “If you take the state’s position to its logical sequence, no tribe could ever sue the state for anything.”

Solomon, Crowell and Forman contend the Schwarzenegger administration is blocking the suits to force tribes to renegotiate their compacts and pay more money to the state, as nine tribes have done.

Schwarzenegger’s press office referred inquiries to Attorney General Bill Lockyer. A Lockyer spokesman provided a statement prepared by state attorneys.

“The rule does not apply to every dispute that arises under the 1999 compact,” it said. “Dismissal based on indispensability of parties comes into play only when the dispute involves application of compact provisions that affect some or all of the compact tribes, or some or all of the non-compact tribes.”

One tribal attorney whose view differs from most is Howard Dickstein, who represents Pala and two Northern California tribes that signed revised compacts with Schwarzenegger in 2004.

Dickstein said tribes, which have governmental immunity from most suits, have been using Rule 19 for decades to get cases dismissed in their favor. He called it ironic for tribal attorneys to complain about the state invoking it.

“What you can’t litigate are issues that are common to multiple tribes unless those tribes agree to the lawsuit,” he said. “Once you entered into compacts with many common provisions, that was very clear from Day One that that could be an outcome. I don’t know why anyone’s surprised about this.”

Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson are attorneys practicing in the areas of ABC law, ABC Appeals Board cases, and all related Land Use Matters such as City and County Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Police and Fire permits, Entertainment law, and Gambling Law; as well as Business and Personal Injury litigation. Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson can be reached at 800 405 4222.”

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-01 16:36:382020-03-05 03:09:59Tribal attorneys argue California’s tribes must have a judicial remedy to enforce the provisions of the Tribal-State Gaming Compacts.

Intertribal Court of Southern California Bar Association Accepts New Members from Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson

in Indian Gaming, News

The Law Firm of Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson is proud to announce the acceptance by the Intertribal Court of Southern California Bar Association of Stephen Warren Solomon, Ralph B. Saltsman, Stephen Allen Jamieson, Bruce Evans, and Ryan Kroll. Each of these lawyers is now permitted to practice law before the Intertribal Court of Southern California. 

The ICSC describes its mission as follows: 

“Empowerment through the effective administration of equal justice for all”

The overall purpose of the ICSC is to provide members of the Native American community and their participating tribes with a cultural sensitive Judicial Forum in which to present and resolve disputes.

The ICSC is an Intertribal Court System, which works on a “circuit court” format whereby a Judge travels from one Reservation to the next presiding over assigned cases. Rulings are based on tribal laws, ordinances, customs and historical precedent. The ICSC provides court administration, court clerks, bailiffs, and case management. Tribal Court hearings are held at their respective Tribes’ Reservations.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2012-12-21 10:08:072012-12-21 10:08:07Intertribal Court of Southern California Bar Association Accepts New Members from Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson

Letting The Genie Out of The Bottle?

in Current Affairs, Indian Gaming, Ralph B. Saltsman, Stephen Warren Solomon

 Indian Country’s Debate on Internet Gaming

Ralph B. Saltsman and Stephen Warren Solomon

 

 

Well. Do we let the Genie out of the bottle? Does this Genie lavish untold wealth on its owner or wreak devastation on an established treasured enterprise? By the way, to whom does this Genie belong?

 

In California State legislation appears from time to time allowing Intrastate Internet gaming. One such bill in preliminary discussion in Sacramento and elsewhere would grant a license for Internet Intrastate poker to an enterprise consisting of card clubs and Indian Tribes. That license would unleash a Genie co-owned by those two sets of entities. This bill would allow for On-line poker and not Class III gaming. What is not included in this discussion is the race track or state lottery.

 

Class III gaming includes card games played against the house and also Las Vegas style slot machines. In time more than one license could be issued to more than one business entity. This intrastate gaming by definition would be confined to California. Intrastate Internet poker where there is no bank and no percentage take could yield hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Internet gaming may: 1) reap billions for its owners; or, 2) generate a lot of excitement and not much else; or, 3) diminish the most successful gaming structure in California, that is, Native American land.

 

Indian casinos in California are billion dollar industries. According to the National Indian Gaming Commission, California casinos had gross incomes of $7.8 billion in 2007 and $7.36 billion in 2008. No one would consciously want to dismantle or endanger those generous structures. On the other hand, who would want to ignore tomorrow’s multi-billion dollar money machine that is internet gaming?

 

At present, there is no lawful Internet gaming in the United. States. In California through state Constitutional amendment, legislation and Compacts between Tribe and State, Indian casinos have Class III gaming. Card Clubs do not. California Indian casinos are holding the cards over the competing Card Clubs. This could change.

 

The statistical array of poker players, internet gamblers, and casino patrons is only part of the equation under debate. Regardless of what the numbers show as to who is gambling and how they are doing it, no one can seriously argue the limits and potential for Intrastate California Internet gambling. Internet gaming may prove to be without easily predictable limit. But Indian Tribes are wrestling with the issue of structure. One very serious argument in opposition to Internet gaming is the inclusion of Card Clubs into the world of Tribal gaming capabilities. Card Clubs are not presently part of that success story. Inclusion into an Internet gaming system of Card Clubs partnered together with Indian Tribes may be the Card Clubs’ first step toward intrusion into what is now the Tribes’ exclusive domain.

 

The issue of Indian Gaming exclusivity in California raises the perplexing question: Is it in the Indian Nation’s best interest to allow Intrastate Internet gaming to be born if it means ultimately losing exclusivity in Class III gaming Indian Nations presently enjoy? The above referenced legislation under early discussion in California would restrict games to poker thereby preserving Indian Casinos’ exclusive right to provide Class III gaming, but many in Indian Country are wondering out loud if poker is but step one in a continuum of graduated legislation and Constitutional amendment that will end with full Class III internet gambling. At that point, the Tribes’ exclusivity is lost, the Genie has destroyed the brick and mortar enterprise that has sustained Indian Tribes, and there is no putting the Genie back in the bottle.

 

But then on the other hand, how can Indian Nations which had the foresight to create and build casino gaming allow the lucrative opportunity of Internet gaming to pass?

 

The argument in favor of immediate passage of state legislation permitting Internet interstate poker, is this gaming will be restricted to poker and not Class III gaming. The sanctity of the Indian Casino will be therefore undisturbed. Moreover, failure to act now will allow legal Internet intrastate poker to take off leaving the Tribes behind.

 

However, once allowed the financial wherewithal, cache of success and the attendant political power, Card Clubs could have a platform from which further and additional Internet gaming could be modified by legislation and Constitutional amendment by ballot all at Card Club instigation. Most observers believe Native American Tribes can now effectively block gaming legislation. Will that still be true when financially successful Card Clubs participating in a Tribal-Card Club Internet Intrastate poker system go to the legislature and ballot proposition in the future with new laws and constitutional provision allowing Class III Internet gaming?

Those in favor of Internet intrastate poker point out that absent Tribal leaders’ foresight in the 1980’s and 1990’s, the Las Vegas style casinos on Indian Reservation lands would not exist. That foresight now calls for action to take advantage of the computer phenomenon which will grow exponentially with or without Tribal participation.

 

It is also true that when Native Americans won passage of State constitutional amendments and attendant legislation, and the Federal Government and State law adopted the machinery for Native American Casinos with Class III gaming, and the Tribes built those casinos, there were no billion dollar casino businesses in California to lose. Now the intricacies of the arguments are dangerous, because the stakes are awfully high.

 

To some Native Americans contemplating their economic status during the mid Twentieth Century, their memories recall deprivation without the nostalgia for those good old days. That Genie could be key to further fortune or could be the self-chosen means of destruction of the existing enterprise sustaining so many Native American Tribes and the communities in which those Indian casinos stand.

The decision to allow passage of legislation in California to establish lawful Internet Intrastate gaming must be made wisely to protect the existing casinos and, at the same time, provide for the future.

So. Do we let this Genie out of the bottle? And whose Genie is it?

##

Ralph B. Saltsman is a lawyer with Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson (ssjlaw.com). He has been a lawyer for 36 years, 34 of which have been in the area of land use licenses and permits.

Stephen Warren Solomon practices administrative law at Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson (ssjlaw.com) in Los Angeles. His expertise centers on licensing and Indian gaming and catastrophic personal injury.

 

Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson are attorneys practicing in the areas of ABC Law, ABC Appeals Board cases, and all related Land Use Matters such as City and County Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Police and Fire Permits, Entertainment Law, and Gambling Law as well as Business and Personal Injury Litigation. Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson can be reached at 800-405-4222.

 

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 RobR https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png RobR2011-01-07 01:15:172018-10-14 01:22:19Letting The Genie Out of The Bottle?

Judgment for 42,700 Slot Machine Licenses Issued by Federal Court

in Indian Gaming, News

Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson wins a great victory by successfully obtaining a federal court Judgment against the State that requires the State to issue 42,700 slot machine licenses the State had been wrongfully withholding in a vain attempt to force the San Pasqual Tribe and others to renegotiate a contract already in place between the State and the Tribe. The State had refused to admit the Licenses were required to be issued

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The Court hereby declares the Tribal-State Gaming Compact between the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians and the State of California authorizes the issuance in the aggregate of 42,700 Gaming Device licenses through the Gaming Device license draw process.

April 30, 2010 W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr.
Date Clerk
s/P. Dela Cruz
(By) Deputy Clerk
ENTERED ON April 30, 2010
Case 3:06-cv-00988-LAB -AJB Document 100 Filed 04/30/10

View Original Judgment Document

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2010-04-30 10:29:522010-04-30 10:29:52Judgment for 42,700 Slot Machine Licenses Issued by Federal Court

Tribe Sues State of California For $115 Million Lost Revenue

in Indian Gaming, News

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

[Download Original Lawsuit PDF]

(VALLEY CENTER, CA) February 9, 2010 – Today the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, located in northeast San Diego County and the owners of Valley View Casino, filed a $115 million lawsuit, against the State of California for lost profits. Stephen Warren Solomon and Stephen Allen Jamieson, with the law firm of Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson, represent the Tribe in this lawsuit, and filed it in Los Angeles Superior Court. The damages are alleged to arise from Governor Schwarzenegger’s refusal to allow the California Gambling Control Commission to issue all of the slot machine licenses to which the tribe is entitled under its 1999 contract with the State. The Tribe contends, therefore, that the State breached its contract and is illegally interfering with its ability to provide slot machine play for its patrons.

The State, led by Governor Schwarzenegger, has for years refused to issue the licenses to which the tribes were entitled, and instead held the licenses as leverage against the tribes in an attempt to force them into new compacts that would strip tribal governments of their sovereignty. By refusing to issue these slot machine licenses, in breach of its contracts with the tribes, Governor Schwarzenegger also eliminated a badly needed source of income for counties and cities that would have generated up to $30 million per year; and, which perhaps could have helped to avoid or mitigate the current fiscal crisis of local government in the state.

Allen Lawson, Chairman of the San Pasqual Tribe explained: “Fulfilling the language of the compact will not only benefit the entire Native American community but in turn will aide the counties of California during this time when everyone could use assistance. We are just asking for what was established to be ours according to the language of the 1999 compact, but it benefits everyone. The governor instead chose to intentionally breach our contract, to the detriment of San Pasqual as well as the people of the state of California”

For additional information you may contact Stephen Warren Solomon at [email protected] or Stephen Allen Jamieson at [email protected], or at 310-822-9848. A copy of the filed lawsuit can be found atwww.ssjlaw.com/valleyviewdamageslawsuit/lawsuit.2.9.10.pdf

###

Links to Related Documents (PDF):
Tribe Sues State of California For Lost Revenue – Complaint 

Press Contacts:
Stephen Warren Solomon or Stephen Allen Jamieson
SOLOMON, SALTSMAN & JAMIESON
426 Culver Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90293
Phone: 310/822-9848
Fax: 310/822-3512 or 310/496-3291
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
Website: www.ssjlaw.com

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2010-02-09 10:33:172010-02-09 10:33:17Tribe Sues State of California For $115 Million Lost Revenue
Page 1 of 212

Current Affairs

  • Dozens of Californians cited for allegedly providing alcoholic beverages to minors Saturday.March 15, 2023 - 9:11 pm

    During the weekend of March 11th and 12th, 2023 the ABC worked with nearly fifty local law enforcement agencies and departments across California to conduct “shoulder tap” minor decoy operations…

  • Newsweek Legal Insight Team spotlight on Solomon Saltsman and JamiesonOctober 20, 2022 - 8:46 pm

    NEWSWEEK Premier Law Firms
    Solomon Saltsman and Jamieson
    in the spotlight…

  • Title 4. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Proposed RegulationsOctober 15, 2022 - 8:21 pm

    Following relaxed policy regulations during the COVID era, the Department has published a proposed rule change to codify Title 4, Rule 70 which will allow licensed premises to serve and allow consumption of alcoholic beverages in permanent non-contiguous areas separate from the main or primary by public area of the licensed premises. There are restrictions and requirements that licensees should be acquainted with if alcohol service is intended or is ongoing in these non-contiguous areas. Proposed Rule 70 is set out in full herein. There will be a public hearing before the Department on November 1, 2022.

  • ABC Launches New Online Licensing Services Portal for Over 90,000 California BusinessesAugust 4, 2022 - 9:18 pm

    The fee waivers became available in February 2021 when Governor Gavin Newsom signed a package of immediate actions that provided relief to individuals, families and businesses suffering the most significant economic hardship from the COVID-19 Recession

  • abc alcohol beverage control attorneys los angels CaliforniaTHE CITY OF LOS ANGELES HAS JUST CHANGED ITS LAWSJuly 10, 2022 - 8:15 pm

    On March 31, 2022, the Restaurant Beverage Program (RBP) Ordinance, which expediates the permitting process and lowers costs for eligible sit-down restaurants permitted to sell alcohol went into effect in the City of Los Angeles. Under the new program, qualifying sit-down restaurants can apply to serve alcohol through a 4-week…

LOS ANGELES

426 Culver Boulevard
Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
Toll Free: 800.405.4222
Los Angeles: 310.822.9848
[email protected]



BAY AREA

315 Montgomery Street
10th Floor
San Francisco, CA  94104
Toll Free: 800.405.4222
[email protected]



PORTLAND

25 NW 23rd Place, Suite 6 #363
Portland, OR 97210
Toll Free: 800.405.4222
Portland: 503.236.8050
[email protected]



Do you have questions?

email or call us at 800.405.4222

Join Our Email List

Select list(s) to subscribe to


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson, 426 Culver Blvd., Los Angeles, CA, 90293. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Current Affairs & Latest News

Dozens of Californians cited for allegedly providing alcoholic beverages to minors Saturday.

During the weekend of March 11th and 12th, 2023 the ABC worked with nearly fifty local law enforcement agencies and departments across California to conduct “shoulder tap” minor decoy operations…

Read Full Article

DISCLAIMER

Articles posted on our website, were to the best of our knowledge correct at the time they were written, but laws change continuously so no one should rely on what is written in any article as the current state of the law. The reader should always consult a practicing lawyer for an evaluation of how the current law affects any particular factual situation at the time when it occurs. The badges for AVVO®, Million Dollars Advocates Forum®, Martindale Hubbel AV Preeminent®, SuperLawyers®, and BestLawyers®” have been awarded to various specific attorneys at Solomon Saltsman and Jamieson.  See each attorney’s profile for which badges are specifically assigned to him or her.
Full Site Disclaimer

Copyright © 2018 Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson.

Website design by: wwyou.com

Scroll to top