Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01241/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01241-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VIDEO GAMING TECHNOLOGIES, 

INC., dba VGT, Inc., a 

Tennessee Corporation; UNITED 

CEREBRAL PALSY OF GREATER 

SACRAMENTO, a California NonProfit Corporation; WIND YOUTH 

SERVICES, a California NonProfit Corporation; ROBERT 

FOSS, an individual; JOAN 

SEBASTIANI, an individual, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

BUREAU OF GAMBLING CONTROL, a 

law enforcement division of the 

California Department of 

Justice; MATHEW J. CAMPOY, in 

his official capacity as the 

Acting Chief of the Bureau of 

Gambling Control, 

 Defendants, 

 and 

CAPITAL BINGO, INC., a 

California Corporation; HAGGIN 

GRANT POST NO. 521, THE 

No. 2:08-CV-01241 JAM EFB 

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION

1 

Case 2:08-cv-01241-JAM-EFB Document 81 Filed 06/30/08 Page 1 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AMERICAN LEGION, DEPARTMENT OF 

CALIFORNIA, a California NonProfit Corporation; CASA ROBLE 

HIGH SCHOOL RAMSMEN, INC., a 

California Non-Profit 

Corporation; MARY BROWN, an 

individual. 

 

 Intervenors. 

______________________________/

Plaintiffs Video Gaming Technologies, Inc., (“VGT”), United 

Cerebral Palsy of Greater Sacramento (“UCP”), WIND Youth 

Services (“WIND”), Robert Foss (“Foss”), and Joan Sebastiani 

(“Sebastiani”) brought an action for declaratory and injunctive 

relief over the threatened seizure of a number of electronic 

bingo machines. Plaintiffs allege that the threatened seizure 

of their machines by Defendants Bureau of Gambling Control and 

its acting chief, Mathew J. Campoy (collectively, “BGC”) violate 

their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 

42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq., and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 

5, 2008, the Court issued a temporary restraining order 

enjoining the seizure and ordered BGC to show cause why a 

preliminary injunction should not issue. On June 17, 2008,

Capital Bingo, Inc. (“Capital”), Haggin Grant Post No. 521, The 

American Legion, Department of California (“American Legion”), 

Casa Roble High School Ramsmen (“CRHS”), and Mary Brown 

(“Brown”) were given leave to intervene. Plaintiffs and 

Intervenors now move for a preliminary injunction. BGC opposes 

the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for a 

preliminary injunction is GRANTED. 

2 

Case 2:08-cv-01241-JAM-EFB Document 81 Filed 06/30/08 Page 2 of 10
1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 VGT and Capital manufacture electronic bingo machines that 

are used in California charitable bingo parlors. The machines 

depict an electronic representation of a bingo card. Players 

may also obtain paper cards containing the same information 

depicted on the screen. The machines are linked to a common 

game. Two or more players must be linked into the game for it 

to commence. A computerized number generator draws bingo 

numbers. Each player then presses a button to “daub” the 

corresponding numbers on his or her electronic card. When a 

bingo sequence has been achieved, the player must press a button 

to call bingo or risk “sleeping” the win. The game cannot end 

until a player wins. The house never wins. 

 In May 2008, BGC served several charitable bingo parlors, 

including those operated by UCP, WIND, the American Legion, and 

CRHS, with cease-and-desist orders, identifying the electronic 

bingo machines as gaming devices and stating that if the devices 

were not removed within 30 days, criminal prosecution or seizure 

might follow. 

OPINION 

 Courts consider the following factors in determining 

whether to issue a preliminary injunction: 

(1) the likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits; 

(2) the possibility of plaintiff's suffering irreparable 

injury if relief is not granted; (3) the extent to which 

the balance of hardships favors the respective parties; and 

(4) in certain cases, whether the public interest will be 

advanced by the provision of preliminary relief. 

United States v. Odessa Union Warehouse Co-op, 833 F.2d 172, 174 

(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs must show 

3 

Case 2:08-cv-01241-JAM-EFB Document 81 Filed 06/30/08 Page 3 of 10
either “(1) a combination of probable success on the merits and 

the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) that serious 

questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips in its 

favor.” Id. “These two formulations represent two points on a 

sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm 

increases as the probability of success decreases.” Id. 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs and Intervenors have demonstrated that 

irreparable injury will result if Defendants actions are not 

enjoined and that the balance of hardships tips in their favor. 

Plaintiffs and Intervenors have also demonstrated that there 

remain serious questions about whether BGC’s threatened seizure 

of their electronic bingo machines violates the ADA or their 

constitutional rights. 

 As a threshold matter, the Court must consider whether it 

should abstain from consideration of this matter under the 

Pullman doctrine. See Railroad Com. of Texas v. Pullman Co., 

312 U.S. 496 (1941). “Pullman abstention is an extraordinary 

and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to 

adjudicate a controversy that is properly before it.” Porter v. 

Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 492 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citation 

omitted). “Pullman abstention should rarely be applied.” Id. 

However, Pullman abstention may be used in the discretion of the 

trial court when: 

(1) The complaint touches a sensitive area of social policy 

upon which the federal courts ought not to enter unless no 

alternative to its adjudication is open. (2) Such 

constitutional adjudication plainly can be avoided if a 

definitive ruling on the state issue would terminate the 

controversy. (3) The possibly determinative issue of state 

law is doubtful. 

4 

Case 2:08-cv-01241-JAM-EFB Document 81 Filed 06/30/08 Page 4 of 10
Smelt v. County of Orange, California, 447 F.3d 673, 679 (9th 

Cir. 2006). If a court finds that a Pullman abstention is 

appropriate, it retains jurisdiction over the matter but refers 

the state law question to the state court. Almodovar v. Reiner, 

832 F.2d 1138, 1141 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pullman abstention requires 

the district court to retain jurisdiction so that the plaintiff 

may return to vindicate her federal constitutional rights if the 

state decision does not settle the issues.”). 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Pullman abstention is not appropriate in this case because 

the state court’s determination would not render a decision by 

this Court unnecessary. BGC has already threatened seizure of 

the Plaintiffs’ and Intervenors’ electronic bingo machines. 

Even if the state court determined that the bingo machines were 

illegal under California law, Plaintiffs and Intervenors might 

still be able to maintain their ADA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, 

claiming that the enforcement of the law deprived them of their 

rights. See Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 987 n.6 (9th Cir. 

2007) (“Pullman abstention is not appropriate because the 

driving force behind each of the Plaintiffs' claims is a right 

guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and state court 

clarification of state law would not make a federal court ruling 

unnecessary.”). Because of the nature of the underlying federal 

claims, the Court does not find abstention to be appropriate in 

this case. 

 Furthermore, the determinative issue of state law is not 

doubtful in this case. Even BGC admits that bingo is 

specifically defined by California Penal Code § 326.5. See Def. 

Mem. in Opp. III(5). Because there is clear state law 

5 

Case 2:08-cv-01241-JAM-EFB Document 81 Filed 06/30/08 Page 5 of 10
addressing the relevant issues in this case, Pullman abstention 

should not be applied. 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The second threshold question the Court must address is 

whether VGT, UCP, and WIND have standing to bring this case. In 

their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs have alleged a 

violation of their due process rights under the United States 

and California constitutions and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because VGT, 

UCP, and WIND have property interests in the machines and will 

be injured if their machines are seized, they have standing to 

bring this claim. 

 VGT, UCP, WIND, Capital, American Legion, and CRHS also 

have standing to maintain an ADA claim. Because all these 

organizations would suffer from a direct economic injury as a 

result of the seizure of the electronic bingo machines, and 

because they directly participate in the activity, they have 

standing to challenge the seizure under the ADA. See Pierce v. 

Soc'y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925) (operators of a 

school could assert right on behalf of their students). Because 

they have standing, VGT, UCP, WIND, Capital, American Legion, 

and CRHS may also assert the concomitant rights of third parties 

that would be adversely affected if their challenged failed, in 

this case, disabled bingo players. See Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 

190, 195 (1976). 

 The Court must consider whether Plaintiffs and Intervenors 

are likely to succeed on the merits, or if they have at least 

indicated that there are serious question about the merits. 

Plaintiffs have raised serious questions about whether their 

electronic bingo machines may be seized. 

6 

Case 2:08-cv-01241-JAM-EFB Document 81 Filed 06/30/08 Page 6 of 10
 California Penal Code § 326.5 defines bingo as “a game of 

chance in which prizes are awarded on the basis of designated 

numbers or symbols on a card that conform to numbers or symbols 

selected at random.” Plaintiffs and Intervenors have indicated 

that users of their machines are given cards from which they can 

determine whether they have won. Whether the players choose to 

use the cards or an electronic depiction of the card is not 

relevant so long as prizes are awarded based on the card. 

Nothing in the letter of the law dictates the pace, nature, or 

style of bingo games. See People v. 8,000 Punchboard Card 

Devices, 142 Cal.App.3d 618, 621 (1983) (rejecting “traditional” 

definition of bingo). If Plaintiffs’ and Intervenors’ machines 

do comply with § 326.5, BGC’s threatened seizure constitutes a 

due process violation. Thus, the moving parties have raised 

serious questions as to whether the BGC’s actions violate their 

constitutional rights. 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Plaintiffs and Intervenors have also raised serious 

questions as to whether enforcement of § 326.5 violates the ADA. 

42 U.S.C. § 12132 states: 

[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by 

reason of such disability, be excluded from participation 

in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or 

activities of a public entity, or be subjected to 

discrimination by any such entity. 

BGC argues that bingo games are not “services, programs, or 

activities of a public entity” and are therefore not protected 

by the statute. However, the Ninth Circuit has found that Title 

II of the ADA applies not only to voluntary programs, but to the 

enforcement of laws. See McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 

7 

Case 2:08-cv-01241-JAM-EFB Document 81 Filed 06/30/08 Page 7 of 10
1259, 1268 (9th Cir. 2004) (ADA applied to enforcement of 

municipal ordinance). 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BGC also argues that because its policy is facially 

neutral, it has not discriminated against the disabled. The 

Ninth Circuit has specifically rejected this reasoning. McGary, 

386 F.3d at 1265 (“We have repeatedly recognized that facially 

neutral policies may violate the ADA when such policies unduly 

burden disabled persons, even when such policies are 

consistently enforced.”) Although the seizure of bingo machines 

may be evenly enforced, it may still disproportionately affect 

the disabled in violation of the ADA. 

BGC also argues that there may be other potential 

reasonable accommodations. These are facts that should be 

developed during discovery and fully litigated at a trial. At 

this point, however, BGC threatens to seize the machines without 

any accommodation for disabled players. Therefore, Plaintiffs 

and Intervenors have demonstrated that there is a serious 

question of whether BGC’s threatened seizure of their electronic 

bingo machines violates the ADA. 

Finally, the balance of hardships strongly favors the 

moving parties. If their machines are seized local charities 

will lose a major revenue source, the disabled will lose an 

important form of entertainment, and VGT and Capital Bingo will 

lose property, the value of which they may not be able to 

recover from the state. 

// 

// 

// 

8 

Case 2:08-cv-01241-JAM-EFB Document 81 Filed 06/30/08 Page 8 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, because the Balance of hardships strongly 

weighs in favor of the Plaintiffs and Intervenors, 

Nothwithstanding defendants arguments in opposition, and because 

serious questions Going to the merits of this case have been 

raised by Plaintiffs and Intervenors, an Order shall issue 

granting Plaintiffs’ and Intervenors motion for a preliminary 

injunction. For the time being, electronic BINGO shall continue 

to be played in the charitable bingo halls involved in this 

action. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a preliminary injunction is entered, 

effective as of June 25, 2008, at 5:00 P.M., restraining and 

enjoining Defendants and any other person and/or entity or 

agency acting in concert or participation with them (including, 

but not limited to, the California Attorney General and any 

other division or bureau of the California Department of 

Justice), from enforcing in any manner (including, but not 

limited to, seizing electronic bingo aids, commencing criminal 

prosecutions, and halting the play of charitable bingo) the 

cease-and-desist orders issued by the Bureau on Gilman Street 

Bingo in Berkeley (served May 12, 2008), the Sacramento Bingo 

Center in Sacramento (served May 7, 2008), the Mayhew Community 

Bingo Center in Sacramento (served May 8, 2008), the North Watt 

Bingo Parlor in Sacramento (served May 8, 2008), the Madison 

Mall Bingo Center in Sacramento (served May 8, 2008), the 

American Legion (served on May 13, 2008), and Capital 

9 

Case 2:08-cv-01241-JAM-EFB Document 81 Filed 06/30/08 Page 9 of 10
Freelancers (served on or about May 7, 2008). No bond is 

required. 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date:June 30, 2008 

10 

Case 2:08-cv-01241-JAM-EFB Document 81 Filed 06/30/08 Page 10 of 10