Watkins v. Resorts International Hotel And Casino, Inc.

591 A.2d 592 (1991)

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

Plaintiffs, Murrell Watkins, and Abraham McDaniel and their wholly-owned companies (P), sued Resorts International (Resorts), Bally's Park Place Casino (Bally's), and other defendants in federal district court, claiming that as minority bus-line owners they had been the targets of discriminatory practices. Plaintiff Watkins and his wife were the sole shareholders in Ocean Breeze Transit Company (Ocean Breeze), a bus company that operated service to Atlantic City Casinos. In 1982, Resorts granted Ocean Breeze permission to provide bus service to its casino. When the first Ocean Breeze bus arrived, however, a casino representative told the driver that the buses should not return because they were too old and dirty. According to Watkins, Resorts executive Alan McClain later told Watkins: 'Just because you niggers get a license and buses, we do not have to let you into the casino.' Finally, McClain informed Watkins that Ocean Breeze would not be allowed to service Resorts unless it used buses less than two years old. Resorts, however, continued to allow white-owned bus companies with older buses to provide transportation to the casino. Watkins alleges that Bally's also discriminated against him. When Watkins began servicing the casino around 1980, McClain was Bally's project manager. According to Watkins, McClain and another Bally's executive, Eugene McDermott, helped several white-owned bus companies to usurp Watkins's designated territories. Claiming that these companies had failed to comply with licensing requirements, Watkins notified defendant Frank Fitzsimmons of the New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT), but Fitzsimmons took no action. Watkins alleges that Fitzsimmons's failure to take action 'eventually resulted in the revocation of his line run from Cape May to [Resorts and Bally's].' He alleges further that because of defendants' discrimination, he and his wife were forced to mortgage their home and sell their Ocean Breeze shares to avoid personal bankruptcy. The claims under 42 USC 1981,1983, 1985(3), and 1988 were dismissed on motion for various reasons, including insufficient service of process and lack of standing. P then filed in state Superior Court based on the same allegations of discrimination that underlay their federal claims. Ds' were granted a motion to dismiss on the ground that Ps were barred by the entire controversy doctrine from relitigating the same cause of action that had already been decided in federal court. The Appellate Division affirmed on grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and the entire controversy doctrine.