Kent v. Mindlin
| Citation | 52 F.3d 333 |
| Decision Date | 21 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-17286,93-17286 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Michael KENT and John Kent, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ivan MINDLIN, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
Before: GIBSON, * GOODWIN and HUG, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Michael and John Kent agreed with Ivan Mindlin to pool their resources (skill and money) and place bets on sports events. After several profitable years, the Kents thought Mindlin was wrongfully withholding their share of wagering profits and brought this diversity action. The district court dismissed the action after taking enough testimony to decide that the action was basically a suit to enforce the terms of an illegal agreement. The Kents appeal. We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.
From 1981 until 1986, the Kents, Mindlin, and others were parties to a sports betting pool which placed bets at licensed sports books in Nevada, as well as with unlicensed bookies in states where sports betting is illegal.
In 1987, the Kents and Mindlin allegedly agreed that all bets would be placed with licensed Nevada bookmakers. The Kents claim that all bets placed in 1987 were therefore legal, and that they are owed approximately $200,000. The Kents also allege an additional 1987 sports betting agreement. Pursuant to this agreement, Michael Kent was to furnish Mindlin with odds for the college football season in exchange for a $700,000 fee. Mindlin was then free to lay bets on the games at licensed Nevada sports books and keep any gambling profits for himself. The agreement lasted one week, for which Michael Kent claims he is owed $35,650.
In 1984 and 1985, the Kents knew that the pool was placing substantial bets with unlicensed bookmakers in states other than Nevada. Indeed, on one occasion Michael Kent himself travelled to New York City to pick up $100,000 that had been won on bets placed with New York bookmakers. Michael Kent explained that the pool placed bets with unlicensed bookmakers in addition to licensed Nevada sports books because unlicensed bookmakers would accept larger bets, 1 and because bets placed with unlicensed bookmakers would not affect the "line" at the licensed Nevada sports books. Licensed sports books adjust their "lines" in response to wagering patterns. By placing bets with unlicensed bookmakers first, and with licensed Nevada sports books last, the pool could secure more favorable "lines," and, obviously, increase the pool's probability of success.
These facts have never been disputed. The dispute has been over which state's law should be applied to the enforceability of the 1984-1985 pool agreement.
In contract cases, Nevada courts appear to follow the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971). See Laxalt v. McClatchy, 116 F.R.D. 438, 448-49 (D.Nev.1987). Applying Section 202 of the Restatement, the district court first looked to the laws of New York and Florida, two of many states where the pool placed bets with unlicensed bookmakers. Because sports gambling is illegal in those states, the district court concluded that the pool acted illegally. Applying Section 188 of the Restatement, the district court next applied Nevada law to determine whether the illegality of the pool's conduct affected the enforceability of the parties' agreement to share profits from the wagers. Because under Nevada law "contracts made in contravention of the law do not create a right of action," Vincent v. Santa Cruz, 98 Nev. 338, 381 (1982), the district court ruled that Nevada courts would not enforce the pool agreement.
Although the district court's choice of law analysis seems to be a straightforward application of Sections 202 and 188, and finds support in Florida Risk Planning Consultants, Inc. v. Transport Life Insurance Company, 732 F.2d 593, 595-96 (7th Cir.1984) and Don King Productions, Inc. v. Douglas, 742 F.Supp. 741, 753 n. 13 (S.D. NY 1990), the Kents argue that Nevada courts would approach the choice of law issue differently. They argue that because licensed sports-betting exists in Nevada, the courts of that state would apply Nevada law to determine the legality of the pool agreement; and would hold that it was legal. It is not necessary to spell out the details of the Kents' approach to the choice of law issue, because their premise--that under Nevada law the pool is legal--is wrong. In the end, it does not matter which state's law is used to analyze the legality of the pool: it is illegal in every state in the union, including Nevada.
Nevada courts do enforce betting pool agreements to lay wagers at licensed casinos and share the profits. In Siegel v. McEvoy, 101 Nev. 623 (1985), the plaintiff agreed to pay the defendant's costs in entering a poker series sponsored by Las Vegas' Horseshoe Club, and the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff twenty percent of any winnings he might receive. The defendant won a substantial sum, but refused to pay the plaintiff his twenty percent share. When the plaintiff sued for breach of contract, the defendant argued that the suit was premised on an unenforceable gaming debt. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the contract was not an unenforceable gambling contract, but a legally enforceable business arrangement:
[Plaintiff] allegedly provided [defendant] with funds to cover [defendant's] costs in entering a lawful poker tournament sponsored by a duly licensed Las Vegas casino in which [plaintiff] did not participate. If his evidence prevails, their agreement was to divide between themselves the profits made in the tournament, and was not a situation in which one player was to lose to the other.
Id. at 626 (emphasis added).
We add emphasis to the quoted passage to underscore the obvious. Had the parties' 1984-1985 pool agreement been limited to placing bets at licensed sports books, it would have been enforceable under Siegel. But the agreement was not so limited. The agreement was, in part, to place bets with unlicensed bookmakers, and unlicensed bookmaking is a crime in Nevada. See NRS 463.160.
Unlicensed gambling is obviously deleterious to Nevada's economy, because it goes untaxed. See Sacco v. State, 105 Nev. 844, 847 (1989) () It is also deleterious to Nevada's public welfare, because it tends to attract crime. See United States v. Polizzi, 500 F.2d 856, 871 (9th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1120 (1975). Over forty years ago the Nevada Supreme Court wrote:
We note that while gambling, duly licensed, is a lawful enterprise in Nevada, it is unlawful elsewhere in this country; that unlawfully followed elsewhere it tends there to create as well as to attract a criminal element; that it is a pursuit which, unlawfully followed, is conducive of corruption; that the criminal and corruptive elements engaged in unlawful gambling tend to organize and thus obtain widespread power and control over corruptive criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kent v. Mindlin
...bookmakers in various states). On appeal, we affirmed with regard to the claims arising from 1984-85. Kent v. Mindlin, 52 F.3d 333 (TABLE), 1995 WL 236248 (9th Cir.1995). We remanded to the district court, however, for further proceedings to determine the legality and enforceability of the ......