A Florida court recently reversed a ruling regarding the renewal of Calder Race Course, Inc.'s slot machine gaming license for the 2019-2020 fiscal year. The case involved the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, and SCF, Inc., a horse breeding corporation. The decision impacts the ongoing debate over compliance with state regulations governing slot machine gaming.
The court's ruling clarified that SCF, Inc. did not have the standing to challenge the Division's actions. This case highlights the complexities within Florida's gaming regulations, especially regarding the physical requirements for slot machine gaming areas.
Background
The dispute centers on Calder Race Course, which has been a significant player in Florida's horse racing and gaming industry. In 2016, Calder demolished its Grandstand, a crucial structure that provided viewing and betting facilities for patrons. After the demolition, the primary area for viewing races became the apron, an open-air space with outdoor seating and wagering machines.
Following the demolition, the Florida Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association (FHBPA) and SCF, Inc. raised concerns about Calder's compliance with Florida Statutes, specifically section 551.114(4). This statute outlines the requirements for designated slot machine gaming areas, stating they must be contiguous and connected to a live gaming facility.
In 2017, the FHBPA filed a challenge against the Division for allowing Calder to maintain its slot machine license despite the absence of the Grandstand. While an initial ruling supported the Division's decision, the FHBPA continued to contest subsequent renewals of Calder's license. SCF, Inc. later joined the challenge, asserting that the Division's actions constituted unadopted rulemaking.
The Ruling
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, in a per curiam decision, ruled against SCF, Inc., stating that it lacked standing to bring the unadopted rule challenge. The court emphasized that SCF failed to demonstrate any actual harm resulting from the Division's renewal of Calder's license.
The court ruled, "SCF’s speculation that the removal of the Grandstand and reconfiguration of the slot machine gaming area may cause it to have some indeterminate degree of financial injury is not enough to support a finding of standing under the first prong of the two-part test."
Judges Roberts, Makar, and Bilbrey concurred in the decision. The court's opinion noted that SCF's interests as a horse breeder did not align with the protections intended by the statute governing slot machine gaming areas.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Calder Race Course and the broader pari-mutuel wagering landscape in Florida. By reversing the lower court's decision, the District Court of Appeal affirmed the Division's authority to renew Calder's gaming license without further challenges from SCF.
The ruling also clarifies the standing requirements for parties seeking to challenge administrative actions in Florida. It establishes that mere speculation about potential harm is insufficient for standing in administrative law cases. This could deter similar challenges from other parties who may lack direct interests in the outcomes of such regulatory decisions.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential for appeal by SCF, Inc. However, the ruling does set a precedent that may influence future cases involving slot machine licensing and compliance with Florida gaming regulations.