CASE: 19-CA-3794
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA
NORTH FORT MYERS POST NO. 10127 VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, Plaintiff
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Defendant
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR ADJUDICATION OF FACTS NOT AT ISSUE AND INITIAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW
INTRODUCTION
This order pertains to a case that was brought before the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida, involving North Fort Myers Post No. 10127 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff") and the State of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant").
The case revolves around Defendant's allegation that Plaintiff's use of electronic equipment constitutes a "slot machine," a claim that Plaintiff vehemently contests. The court's primary objective is to determine whether the electronic equipment used by Plaintiff falls under the definition of a "slot machine" as per Florida statutes.
FINDINGS OF FACT
-
Both Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed on certain undisputed facts.
-
Defendant, in its motion for summary judgment, failed to provide affidavits or evidence supporting its claim that Plaintiff's electronic equipment qualifies as a "slot machine." Additionally, Defendant did not submit any affidavits opposing Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment or present counterclaims or affirmative defenses.
-
Plaintiff presented three uncontested affidavits from C. Frederic Anderson, Emilio Galasso, and Paul Baldwin in support of its case. These affidavits are accepted by the court as uncontested evidence.
-
Plaintiff conducted discovery and obtained nine admissions to Requests for Admissions served on Defendant.
-
The parties agree that the dispute centers on the characterization and application of facts to the applicable law.
-
Plaintiff is a not-for-profit corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida, operating in Lee County at 996 Pondella Road, North Fort Myers, Florida 33903.
-
Defendant is the state agency responsible for regulating alcoholic beverage licensees and enforcing the Beverage Law, encompassing chapters 561 through 565, 567, and 568 of the Florida Statutes.
-
On June 5, 2019, Defendant inspected Plaintiff's premises and observed the Instant Bingo Systems in operation there.
-
Defendant issued an Official Notice to Plaintiff, providing the manager of the location with a copy of Attorney General Opinion 2008-35.
-
Plaintiff is authorized to conduct bingo and instant bingo games in accordance with Section 849.0931(2)(a) of the Florida Statutes, provided they comply with the provisions of the Bingo Statute.
-
Plaintiff utilizes the Instant Bingo System to manufacture and dispense instant bingo tickets.
-
The Instant Bingo System accepts currency in varying amounts, up to $1.00.
-
The system generates deals of 4,000 instant bingo tickets from a stored flare, some of which are designated as prize winners.
-
Players must open the tickets to reveal if they are winners or losers.
-
Losing tickets are marked "PLAY AGAIN," while winning tickets display a prize amount.
-
Plaintiff is a 501(c) corporation and meets all conditions precedent outlined in Florida Statute §849.0931, known as the Bingo Statute.
-
Plaintiff conducts bingo in compliance with the provisions of Florida Statute §849.0931(1)(a), which defines bingo as a game of chance where participants purchase cards and match drawn numbers to win prizes.
-
Plaintiff uses an electronic device to randomly select winning bingo numbers, displaying them on a board and announcing them to players.
-
Some players use electronic devices to track their bingo cards.
-
Plaintiff also engages in Instant Bingo, defined as a game where players win prizes by opening tickets to reveal numbers, letters, objects, or patterns, some of which are pre-designated as winners.
-
Plaintiff's Instant Bingo tickets are dispensed using a computer system and video monitor that track each play, display necessary notifications, and limit ticket values to $1.00.
-
The electronic device accurately records and maintains the record of the Instant Bingo Game being played.
-
Defendant admitted to certain facts regarding correspondence, notices, and citations issued during the dispute, affirming the existence of a case in controversy between the parties.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The core issue before the court is whether Plaintiff's use of electronic equipment for Instant Bingo violates the provisions of Florida Statute §849.0931. Defendant argues that this electronic device constitutes a "slot machine" under Florida Statute §849.15 and should be prohibited accordingly. However, Defendant failed to provide evidence or affidavits supporting this claim.
Even if Defendant's arguments were considered, the court finds that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the electronic device in question does not meet the definition of a "slot machine" as defined in relevant Florida statutes.
Florida Statute §849.16, which Defendant relies on, was interpreted by the court to pertain to a different context and not apply to Plaintiff's situation. Instead, the court determines that Florida Statute §849.0931 governs this case, and the electronic aid used by Plaintiff falls within the parameters of the law
Given the judicial narrative set forth in the case of 19-CA-3794, it becomes significantly pertinent to recognize the legal latitude allowed for technological innovation within the framework of gaming and gambling regulations. The crux of the matter, distinguishing between traditional and electronic means of gaming, mirrors the evolutionary path that the industry is currently navigating. As exemplified by the Plaintiff's use of electronic equipment to enhance the user experience and operational efficiency in Instant Bingo, the judicial stance taken here reflects an open-ended interpretation of existing statutes in light of modern technological advancements.
The recognition and validation of electronic systems in facilitating Instant Bingo operations underscore a progressive legal landscape that could potentially be leveraged to foster similar innovations, such as electronic dispensers and minders in the realm of pull tabs and bingo. The court’s acknowledgment that the electronic device employed by the Plaintiff does not fall under the prohibitive definition of a "slot machine," as per Florida statutes, resonates with the larger narrative of ensuring that the legal framework remains conducive and adaptive to technological advancements.
In the broader spectrum, this case augments the dialogue around modernizing the gaming and gambling industry to reflect contemporary technological standards. The legislative elasticity demonstrated here could serve as a catalyst for encouraging further integration of digital solutions, thereby propelling the industry towards a technologically enriched future. This precedent, aligned with our strategic vision, underscores the importance of staying ahead of the technological curve, fostering innovation, and adapting to evolving legal interpretations to ensure a seamless alignment between our operational modalities and the regulatory landscape.
As we venture into harnessing newer technologies to enhance our offerings in pull tabs and bingo, the insights gleaned from this case could be instrumental in navigating the legal intricacies and ensuring our innovative strides remain within the permissible boundaries of the law. The case accentuates the necessity of a harmonious relationship between legal frameworks and technological innovations, which is emblematic of the forward-thinking ethos that is fundamental to our business trajectory in the gaming and gambling industry.