Macon Cnty. Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Marie Hoffman Macon Cnty. Greyhound Park, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | 1141273 1141277 1141278. |
| Parties | MACON COUNTY GREYHOUND PARK, INC., d/b/a Victoryland v. Marie HOFFMAN Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., d/b/a Victoryland v. Sandra R. Howard Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., d/b/a Victoryland v. Dianne Slayton |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
David R. Boyd and John G. Smith of Balch & Bingham LLP, Montgomery, for appellant in case no. 1141273; and John M. Bolton III and Charlanna W. Skaggs of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, P.C., Montgomery, for appellant in case no. 1141277 and case no. 1141278.
Ted L. Mann of Mann & Potter, P.C., Birmingham, for appellees.
Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., d/b/a Victoryland ("MCGP"),1 appeals from the trial court's orders denying its motions to compel arbitration in the actions filed against it by Marie Hoffman, Sandra R. Howard, and Dianne Slayton (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the plaintiffs").
On January 29, 2008, Hoffman sued MCGP based on events occurring on January 21, 2008. In her complaint, Hoffman alleged that, on January 21, 2008, she was playing on an electronic-bingo machine at Victoryland, a greyhound parimutuel racecourse that is owned and operated by MCGP. Hoffman alleged that she hit a $110,000 jackpot while playing the machine; that MCGP employees and a technician came over; and that the technician cleared the machine and told her that the jackpot had been caused by a malfunction of the machine. Hoffman also alleged that she continued to play that machine; that she hit another $110,000 jackpot; that MCGP employees and a technician came over again; that the technician again cleared the machine and told her that the second jackpot was also the result of a malfunction; and that she was no longer allowed to play that machine. In her complaint, Hoffman asserted a breach-of-contract claim; an unjust-enrichment claim; a claim of recklessness and wantonness; and a negligent-training-and-supervision claim.
On September 22, 2009, Howard sued MCGP. In her complaint, she alleged that she had played an electronic-bingo machine at Quincy's 777 Casino, which is owned and operated by MCGP, on numerous occasions. Howard also alleged that, on August 28, 2009, she played an electronic-bingo machine at Quincy's 777, but she did not win any jackpots on that date; that Larry P. Langford, who was the mayor of the City of Birmingham at that time, was also a patron at Quincy's 777 on that date; that MCGP employees escorted Langford to specific electronic-bingo machines; that, while playing on those machines, Langford won jackpots; and that Langford won in excess of $50,000 while playing those machines. She also alleged that, on prior occasions when Langford had played the electronic-bingo machines at MCGP, he had won substantial jackpots and that, "upon information and belief," MCGP employees had escorted Langford to specific electronic-bingo machines on those other occasions as well.
In her complaint, Howard alleged a breach-of-contract claim; a claim that MCGP negligently, recklessly, and/or wantonly operated bingo games at Quincy's 777 Casino on August 28, 2009; claims of fraud and fraudulent suppression; and a claim of unconscionable, false, misleading, and deceptive trade practices. She subsequently amended her complaint to add Milton E. McGregor, an owner of MCGP, and Monte Russell, who she alleged was "a high-ranking employee of MCGP," as defendants and to assert a conspiracy claim.
On October 29, 2009, Slayton sued MCGP. She also sued Multimedia Games, Inc., which she alleged was the owner and operator of the electronic-bingo machine she had played on the premises of Victoryland. In her complaint, she alleged that, on August 26, 2009, she was playing on an electronic-bingo machine at Victoryland; that she played the maximum bet possible on the machine and hit the play button; that a winning bingo card appeared; and that the machine froze, stopped, and indicated that she had won a jackpot of $50,000. Slayton alleged that MCGP employees then approached her and informed her that she had won a jackpot; that the MCGP employees requested a copy of her identification and Social Security card so they could process the payment of her jackpot; and that an MCGP employee subsequently told her that they would not pay the jackpot because the machine had malfunctioned, resulting in the jackpot. Based on the events of August 26, 2009, Slayton asserted a breach-of-contract claim; a fraud claim; claims that the defendants had negligently, recklessly, or wantonly voided her jackpot win; a claim that the defendants had negligently, recklessly, and wantonly maintained and serviced the electronic-bingo machine she had been playing; an unjust-enrichment claim; a claim of spoliation of evidence; a negligent-training-and-supervision claim; and a claim of fraudulent concealment and suppression.
In each of these three cases, MCGP filed motions to compel binding arbitration and to dismiss the proceedings, arguing that each case involved a contract involving interstate commerce that included a written arbitration agreement.2 MCGP presented evidence indicating that in March 2007 it had adopted the "Macon County Greyhound Park Official Bingo Rules" ("the official bingo rules") and that it amended those rules on August 10, 2008. The official bingo rules provide, in pertinent part:
"Participation in any bingo game constitutes a Patron's understanding of, and full and unconditional agreement to and acceptance of these Official Rules."
The official bingo rules include the following arbitration provision:
MCGP also presented evidence indicating that the plaintiffs were members of its QClub Advantage program, which is "a voluntary customer loyalty program which rewards customers with points for their electronic bingo play." As a member, each plaintiff had received an orange QClub card. The following was printed on the back of the card:
"Your participation in this program is your acceptance of and agreement with the MCGP, Inc. Official Bingo Rules."
MCGP also attached to the motions to compel arbitration copies of what it asserted was an electronic signature of each plaintiff. It also attached affidavits from Lewis Benefield, the chief operating officer for MCGP. In his affidavit, Benefield stated that the attached signature in case no. 1141273 was an electronic copy of Hoffman's signature authorizing the transfer of her points from a previous rewards program to the QClub Advantage program and that the electronic signatures in case no. 1141277 and case no. 1141278 were electronic signatures of Howard's and Slayton's agreeing to the terms of the official bingo rules. MCGP argued that each of the plaintiffs had demonstrated her agreement to be bound by the official bingo rules, which included the arbitration agreement, by playing the electronic-bingo machines at MCGP's facilities; by participating in the QClub Advantage program; and by their electronic signatures.
MCGP also asserted that the contracts that contained the arbitration provision involved interstate commerce. Specifically, it presented evidence indicating that all the electronic-bingo machines on MCGP's premises were manufactured outside Alabama. It also presented evidence indicating that the electronic-bingo machine at issue in case no. 1141273 was owned by a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Reno, Nevada. Finally, it presented evidence indicating that 48–52% of the participants in its QClub Advantage program were from states other than Alabama.
Each of the plaintiffs objected to the motions to compel arbitration. Each argued that there was no agreement to arbitrate; that the arbitration provisions were unconscionable and therefore void; that the official bingo rules were outside the rules promulgated by the sheriff of Macon County pursuant to Ala. Const. 1901, Amend. No. 744 (Local Amendments, Macon County, § 1, Ala. Const. 1901 (Off. Recomp.)) ("the sheriff's rules"); that they were fraudulently induced into entering the contract containing the arbitration provision; and that the arbitration provision is void because the contracts in question were illegal gambling contracts.
On July 20, 2015, the trial court entered a separate order in each case denying the motion to compel arbitration. MCGP appealed those denials to this Court. We consolidated those cases for the purpose of writing one opinion.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rape v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, 1111250
...498, 502 (1951), quoting in turn Ellis v. Batson, 177 Ala. 313, 318, 58 So. 193, 194 (1912) )). See, e.g., Macon Cty. Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Hoffman, 226 So.3d 152, 167 (Ala. 2016) (declining to provide requested relief because "[t]his Court has repeatedly held that electronic-bingo games,......
-
Ellswick v. Quantum3 Grp., LLC
...law is the law of Alabama." 137 S.Ct. at 1411. Under Alabama law, a void debt has no legal effect. See Macon Cty. Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Hoffman, 226 So. 3d 152, 161 (Ala. 2016) ("[A] void contract is the same as a nonexistent contract."); In re Cox, 214 B.R. 635, 649 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 199......
-
Easley v. WLCC II
...findings in the Award is the invalidation of the entire agreement, including the arbitration clause[]" (Doc. 6 at 9) is misplaced. In Macon County, the court declined enforce any provision in a contract for gambling, as the contract was void as a matter of law. Macon County, 226 So.3d at 16......
-
Dream, Inc. v. Samuels
...not just some, are "void," not voidable, if those contracts are founded "in whole or in part on a gambling consideration."'" Hoffman, 226 So.3d at 161 (quoting Johnson Jefferson Cnty. Racing Ass'n, Inc., 1 So.3d 960, 970-71 (Ala. 2008) (Parker, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)......