State Of Alabama v. Epic Tech, LLC

378 So. 3d 467 (2022)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P sued Epic (Ds) seeking an order declaring the illegal gambling operations conducted by Ds to be a public nuisance and to obtain related injunctive relief. P alleged had a reasonable chance of success on the merits; that it would be irreparably harmed in the absence of injunctive relief; that it lacked an adequate legal remedy; and that the 'balance of equities' favored the issuance of the injunctions. P supported its motions with evidentiary exhibits, video recordings of the gambling activities in each county, and accompanying affidavit testimony attesting that special agents with the attorney general's office had, during surveillance of the subject facilities, observed nothing to suggest that the activities witnessed amounted to playing the legally permissible game of bingo. The trial courts dismissed each action in its entirety based on their conclusions that they lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over P's claims. This Court reversed those dismissal orders and remanded the matters for further proceedings. P claimed that the electronic gaming machines involved were illegal 'games of chance.' Local law enforcement refused to take steps to shut down Ds' operations. Ds presented testimony from numerous other witnesses, each of whom testified that charitable contributions and taxation revenue stemming from the proceeds of the operations were essential to providing services necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of County residents. Ds maintained that P could not meet its burden of demonstrating that their operations caused irreparable harm and that the activities benefited County residents. The trial court concluded that P's evidence 'was deficient in at least three of four of [the] elements' required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. It concluded that issuing the requested injunction 'would impose an unreasonable financial hardship for the citizens of Macon County.' More particularly, it concluded that P had failed to show that the absence of injunctive relief would subject 'anyone' to immediate and irreparable harm. P appealed.