7/10/2007 iMEGA Suit Against UIGEA Strongest Fight Against the US Bill

[snappo]

7/10/2007
http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gamblin...bill_46779.html

very sorry if this is a repost. snippet:

"According to the iMEGA website their legal team today filed a brief in US Circuit Court in the US 3rd District (New Jersey), supporting their request for a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the UIGEA. "

wasn't sure if it's cool to post the whole article..

"The case iMEGA brings to the court is one of the strongest forces against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The legal team for iMEGA has done quite a bit of research and believes its case is so strong that they are requesting for an immediate court date based on the strength and merit of its case.

Normally, a case is proposed and then does not see the light of day for months. But iMEGA claims that the UIGEA is so unconstitional and so damaging to those they represent that a TRO against the bill is imperative. "

[niss]

The case has been filed in the US District Court for the District of NJ. Not the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was commenced in early June. The motion papers were filed yesterday (7/10).

According to the docket, the hearing on the motion is scheduled for September 4.

[MiltonFriedman]

"an immediate court date "

Basically, DOJ has not even answered the complaint nor appeared. They have NO reason to move this forward, nor should they. DOJ would be foolish to do anything until they have to do so, and certainly will not before the Regulations are proposed.

The timetable for a TRO is generally WAY quicker than "a hearing" in about 8 weeks. However, it is up to the plaintiffs to move it forward.

Are any litigation counsel out there with experience in federal court in NJ who can comment on the glacial pace of this matter to date ?

[MiltonFriedman]

It would help tremndously here if some NJ litigators could explain:

Is there no difference between a preliminary injunction and a TRO in that Court ? A TRO has a nuch faster track in other jurisdictions than that afforded for a preliminary injunction.

The filing says an Application was made for a TRO when the Complaint was filed. Why wasn't the supporting set of papers filed then ? Were supporting affidavits filed about irreparable injury ?

Sept 4 seems like a long time to wait for a TRO hearing, especially as the Regs sought to be enjoined will be out long before then AND, the football season will be underway.

Finally, wouldn't a brief cite the local rules about temporary restraining orders and cite some local caselaw ?

Anyone with substantive knowledge of NJ Federal procedures have a comment ?

[oldbookguy]

If this is incorrect, someone please correct me.

The reg's, once posted, will have a 60 day comment period before they actually go into effect.

So, if the reg's are published, say tomorrow, it will be 60 more days till they go into effect, or more if comments cause changes to them.

This will take them, at a minimum, past the Sept. 04 hearing date?

obg

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

[ QUOTE ]

If this is incorrect, someone please correct me.

The reg's, once posted, will have a 60 day comment period before they actually go into effect.

So, if the reg's are published, say tomorrow, it will be 60 more days till they go into effect, or more if comments cause changes to them.

This will take them, at a minimum, past the Sept. 04 hearing date?

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

what are the regs passing going to change?

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
It would help tremndously here if some NJ litigators could explain:

Is there no difference between a preliminary injunction and a TRO in that Court ? A TRO has a nuch faster track in other jurisdictions than that afforded for a preliminary injunction.

The filing says an Application was made for a TRO when the Complaint was filed. Why wasn't the supporting set of papers filed then ? Were supporting affidavits filed about irreparable injury ?

Sept 4 seems like a long time to wait for a TRO hearing, especially as the Regs sought to be enjoined will be out long before then AND, the football season will be underway.

Finally, wouldn't a brief cite the local rules about temporary restraining orders and cite some local caselaw ?

Anyone with substantive knowledge of NJ Federal procedures have a comment ?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'm not a NJ litigator, but I'm a NY litigator. I do some federal litigation, but it's been a while and I've never sought emergent relief (TROs, etc.) in a federal court (although I do it all the time in NY courts). So take this with a slight grain of salt. I'll try to answer some of the questions above and others that people might have....

First, there is no NJ Federal Law or NJ Federal Procedure Law. The US District Courts all have the same procedural law. There will be local rules that govern minutia of procedure (format of papers, what days and times hearings are held, etc.), but for the most party the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are going to govern this.

Yes, a TRO is different than a preliminary injunction. Here's how it works -- a preliminary injunction asks the court to take some action (here, stay the enforcement of the UIGEA), on an emergency basis, for the duration of the lawsuit. A party makes a "motion" for a preliminary injunction, usually toward the beginning of the lawsuit, to avoid irreperable injury while the lawsuit is ongoing.

Now, motions are not decided all that quickly, and the party may still be at risk of irreparable injury while the motion for the prelim inj. is pending. Thus, one may apply for a TRO (temporary restraining order), which would ask the court to give certain relief (here, most likely staying the enforcement of the UIGEA) while the MOTION for Prelim. Inj. is being argued & decided. So, usually the TRO is decided very quickly (the day or week it is filed), and usually courts do not grant them. They are tough to get, and the party seeking a TRO has a very high threshold to meet before one will be granted. He may still ultimately win his preliminary injunction motion, and even the lawsuit, but the most drastic and expedient relief -- the TRO -- is hard to get.

I have not read up on this lawsuit, but from a quick reading of this thread, it sounds like the moving party seeks a preliminary injunction, which is set down for a Sept. 4 hearing (usually the judge will hear arguments that day, and the parties submit briefs in advance of that day), and has asked for a TRO to be in effect from now until that motion is determined. If the TRO was granted, we would've heard about it. If it is granted, we'll hear about it. It would be major news for a District Court to stay the enforcement of a federal statute on a TRO application. Don't count on that happening.

I hope this helps some of you understand the procedure. Does anyone have copies of the papers filed? If so, if I can get my hands on those I can tell you exactly what's going on, and give an assessment of the likelihood of success, whether the lawyers are any good, etc.

This does sound exciting, and I'm going to read up on this case, see what it's all about. Please post if anyone knows where I can read the complaint, the motion papers, etc.

[oldbookguy]

Link to the brief that was filed:

http://www.imega.org/wp-content/uplo...otsc070705.pdf

[JPT III]

OK, the website in the original post had a link to the brief that was filed. I'll read it and post again tonight. Substantively, we need a Constitutional lawyer to opine on the merits of the case, which is an action grounded in First Amendment rights. I can probably help out tonight with procedural and other questions, but I'm no First Amendment maven.

[JPT III]

Ummm....third sentence of the text of the brief and the lawyers show the court that they don't know the difference between "affect" and "effect." Not good for us. We all make mistakes, I suppose, but it seems like you'd proof read your brief submitted to the federal court a few times -- particularly the opening argument.