NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 4182 C U L IN A R Y S E R V IC E O F D E L A W A R E V A L L E Y , IN C .;

M AR T I N C AP L AN, A p p e llan ts v. BO RO UGH OF YAR DL E Y, P E NNS YL VANI A; C . W I L L I A M W I N S L A D E , i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty; J A M E S J . O ’ N E I L L , i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty; J A M E S M . M C N A M A R A , i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty; JO S E P H H U N T E R , ind iv id u a llya n d in h is o f f icia l ca p a c ity O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 2- 09- cv- 01251 ) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Petr es e B . T ucker

A r gued on J une 22, 2010 B e f o re : A M B R O , C H A G A R E S , a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l e: J une 30, 2010) St even Pac hm an, E s q. L a th ro p B . N e ls o n , II I, E s q . [ ARG UED ] Si dneyS. L i ebes m an, E s q. M o n t g o me ry , M c Cr a c k e n , W a l k e r& Rho a d s , LLP 123 Sout h B r oad Str eet A v e n u e o f

th e A rts Phi l adel phi a, PA 191092

C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts A ndr ew G . C as s i dy , E s q. C hr i s t i an P. L aB l ett a, E s q. Do n n e l l ya n d As s o c i a t e s , P . C. 1 W es tFi r s tA venue, Sui t e 450 C ons hohocken, PA 19428 C ouns el f orAppel l ees H arryG . M ahoney , E s q. T hom as C . G al l agher , E s q. [ ARG UED ] D eas ey , M ahoney , V al ent i ni & N or th, L t d. Sui t e 3400, 1601 M arketSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C o u n s e lf

o rAp p e l l e e s B o r o u g h o

f Y a r d l e y , C . W i l l i a m W i n s la de , J

a m e s M. McN am ar a, and Jos eph H

unt er J os eph D . G ol dber g, E s q. W e n d i D . B a ri s h , E s q . [ ARG UED ] T amar a L. R udow , E s q. W eber , G al l agher , Si m ps on, St apl et on, Fi r es & N ew by 2000 M arketSt r eet Sui t e 1300 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e llee J a m e s J . O ’N e ill OPI NI ON O F THE COURT V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudge . C u lin a ryS e rv ice s o f

D e law a re V a lley , In c . (“C u lin a ryS e rv ice s” ) a n d M a rtin C aplan ( “C aplan”) ( coll ect i velyreferred t o h erei n as “P l ai nti ffs”) appeal fr om an A ug ust 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 o rd e r o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n iaT he fa ct s i n thi s s ect i on ar e der i ved fr om Pl ai nt i ffs ’ or i gi nal compl ai nt , w hi ch the 1 D istri ct C o u rtd ism issed p u rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 1 2 (b)(6 ) an d (7). 3 di s m i s s i ng thei rcompl ai ntand a Sept ember29, 2009 or derdeny i ng thei rm ot i on forl eave t o fil e an am end ed co m plai nt. W e w i l l affirm the d i sm i ssal of all of P l ai nti ffs’ cl ai m s, exce ptforthe r eques tfordecl ar at oryr el i ef, w hi ch w e w i l l vaca t e and r emand forfurther pr ocee di ngs . W e w i l l al s o aff i rm the deni al of the mot i on t o amend. I . F act ual and P roce dural H i s t ory A . F act ual H i s t ory 1 C u lin a ryS e rv ice s d istrib u tes a m u se m e n t, arc a d e , an d re d e m p tio n g a m e s to es t abl i s hm ent s l i cens ed bythe Penns y l vani a Li quorC ontr ol B oar d ( “PL C B ”) . T w o of th e s e g a me s a r e a ti s s u e i n th i s c a s e : Re d , W h i t e & Bl u e Ga me a n d Ho l d Em P o k e rGa me (c o lle c tiv e ly re f

e rr e d to h e re in a s th e “ G a m e s ” ). T he R ed, W hi t e & B l ue G ame i s a thr ee- r eel game i n w hi ch the pl ay erm us ts t op e a c h r e e l t o wi n . T h e Ho l d E m P o k e rGa me i s a f i v e - r e e l g a me i n wh i c h th e f i r s ttwo r eel s eac h as s i gn a ca r d, and the pl ay erm us ts t op the r emai ni ng r eel s t o w i n. Pl ai nt i ffs m ai nt ai n thatthe G ames do notfunct i on i n the s ame m anneras tr adi t i onal s l otm achi nes beca us e theydo notut i l i ze r andom num bergener at or s , out comes a r e notpr edet erm i ned, and pl ay er s m us tus e s ki l l t o s t op the r eel s t o s ucce ed. T hus , Pl ai nt i ffs cont end thatthe use of ski l l predom i nates ov er chance in the G am es. O n M a rc h 7 , 2 0 0 8 , P lain tiff s e n ter e d in to a n a g re e m e n t w ith th e K n o w les -D o y leI ti s unfortunat e thatthe Penns y l vani a s t at e ent i t i es , agenc i es , and off i ci al s di d not 2 i s s ue an opi ni on on the l egal i tyof the G ames. Such an opi ni on, r eac hi ng ei ther concl us i on, w oul d l i kel yhave pr event ed the s etof eve nt s thattr ans pi r ed i n the abs ence of anygui dance w hat s oever . Pl ai nt i ffs cl ear l ym ade s i gni fi canteff ort s t o obt ai n s uch an o p in io n , o n ly to b e re b u f f e d . 4 A m er i can Legi on i n Y ar dl ey , Penns y l vani a ( the “Y ar dl eyA m er i can Legi on”) . T he A gr eementpr ovi ded thatthe Y ar dl eyA m er i can Legi on w oul d l eas e the G ames fr om C ul i naryServi ces i n excha nge forfi fty - per centof the netr evenue fr om the G ames. T he A gr eemental s o pr ovi ded foraut om at i c t erm i nat i on “i m m edi at el yupon not i ce by au tho ri ti es th at th e g am es a re p roh ibit ed fo r an yrea so n . ” (A p p . at 32 . ) B efor e ent er i ng i nt o the A gr eement , Pl ai nt i ffs s oughtthe opi ni ons of the Penns y l vani a G ami ng C ontr ol B oar d ( “PG C B ”) and PL C B r egar di ng the l egal i tyof the G a m e s – th e P G C B d id n o t re sp o n d , an d th e P L C B d id n o t o f f e r a n o p in io n o n th e ir l egal i ty . Pl ai nt i ffs then cons ul t ed the Penns y l vani a St at e Pol i ce’ s B ur eau of L i quorC ode E n f o rc e m e n t (“ B L C E ” ), w h ich d e sp ite in sp e c tin g th e G a m e s, o f f e re d a “ n o c o m m e n t” opi ni on. 2 A ft erent er i ng i nt o the A gr eement , butbefor e i ns t al l i ng the G ames, C apl an in f o rm e d th e lo c a l p o lice c h ief , Ja m e s J . O ’N e ill (“ C h ief O ’N e ill ” ), o f

h is in ten tio n to i ns t al l the G ames a nd of the B L C E ’ s “no comm ent ” opi ni on. A ft erPl ai nt i ffs i ns t al l ed the G ames, B or ough M anage rC . W i l l i am W i ns l ade ( “M anage rW i ns l ade” ) i nform ed the boar d of di r ect or s of the Y ar dl eyA m er i can Legi on thatthe G ames ha d been “ deemed ill e g a l b yY a rd ley B o ro u g h , Y a rd ley B o ro u g h P o lice D e p a rtm e n t, an d th e P e n n sy lv a n ia5

St at e Pol i ce. ” (I

d. at 34 . ) Shor t l yther eaf

t er , M anage rW i ns l ade i s s ued an of fi ci al not i fi cat i on t o the Y ar dl ey A m er i can Legi on that“af t ercar eful i nves t i gat i on byPol i ce Chi ef O ’ N ei l l i thas been deemed thatm achi nes y ou have a r e i n [s i c] i l l egal . ” (I d. at35. ) T he not i fi cat i on s t at ed that“C hi ef O ’ N ei l l ’ s i nves t i gat i on i ncl uded di s cus s i ons w i th C om m anderR ackovi ch of the Q ua ke r t own B a rr a c ks of the PA St a t e Pol i c e a nd Spe c i a l I nv e s t i ga t orSmi th o f the PA St at e Pol i ce. ” (I

d. ) Pl ai nt i ffs cont end thatM anage rW i ns l ade, C hi ef O ’ N ei l l , and C om m anderR ackovi ch neve rper s onal l yi ns pect ed the G ames a nd thateac h l acks the e x p e rtise o r tra in in g to a ss e ss th e ir leg a lity . F u rth e r, In v e stig a to r S m ith a lleg e d ly di s cl ai m ed anyper s onal know l edge orexper i ence w i th the G ames a nd confi rm ed he w o u l d th u s b e u n a b l e t o i s s u e a n o p i n i o n r e g a r d i n g th e i rl e g a l i ty. T he off i ci al not i fi cat i on eff

ect i vel yt erm i nat ed the A gr eement . C apl an su b se q u e n tlyre q u e ste d th e B o ro u g h to re sc in d th e n o tific a tio n , to n o a v a il. In ste a d , at a publ i c meet i ng, B or ough C ounci l Pr es i dentJ os eph H unt er( “Pr es i dentH unt er ”) expr es s ed the C ounci l ’ s s uppor tforthe dec i s i ons and ac t i ons of M anage rW i ns l ade a nd C hi ef O ’ N ei l l . T he B or ough publ i s hed the mi nut es fr om thi s m eet i ng on i t s w ebs i t e. A tthe sa m e m e e tin g , B o ro u g h S o licito r Ja m e s M . M c N a m a ra (“ S o licito r M c N a m a ra ” ) a g re e d to l ook i nt o the mat t er . A few day s l at er , he i nform ed Pl ai nt i ffs , “The B or ough of Y ar dl ey i s i n no pos i t i on t o m ake adet erm i nat i on as t o the l egal i tyof the[ G ames] and the ef fec t of pos s i bl e us e of the [G ames] i n the [Y ar dl ey ] A m er i can Legi on hal l . ” (I d. a t 4 0 .)C h ief O ’N e ill re tain e d se p a ra te c o u n se l an d , w h e n a p p ro p ria te, is re f e rre d to 3 s epar at el y . A l l otherdefe ndant s ar e col l ect i vel yr efe rr ed t o as “B or ough D efe ndant s . ” O therw i s e, gener al r efe r ence s t o “D efe ndant s ” i ncl ude both the B or ough D efe ndant s and C h ief O ’N e ill . 6 N o tw ith stan d ing this disclaim er o f a u tho ri ty , the B o rou g h an d it s o ff icers co n ti n u ed to ref

u se to resc ind the o ff

ici al no ti fica ti o n . Instea d , S o li cit o r M cN am ara s ugges t ed the part i es w ai tunt i l the B ucks C ountyD i s tr i ctA t t orney ’ s O ffi ce i s s ued an opi ni on on the mat t er . T he B ucks C ountyD i s tr i ctA t t orney , how ever , decl i ned t o offe ran o p in io n a f

te r i n s p e c tin g th e G a m e s . A s a c o n se q u e n c e o f

th e B o ro u g h ’s a c tio n s, P lain tiff s lo st th e ir o n lyc o n tra c t in Penns y l vani a and ha ve s i nce be en unabl e t o ent eri nt o addi t i onal contr act s . A l though se v e ra l o th e r p o ten tial c u sto m e rs h a v e in d ica ted th e ir w ill in g n e ss to e n terin to a g re e m e n ts w i th Pl ai nt i ffs , theyhave de cl i ned t o do s o beca us e of the B or ough’ s as s es s m entof the G ames. A s a r es ul t , Pl ai nt i ffs have be en unabl e t o di s tr i but e i t s i nvent oryof fi fty - four G a m e s a n d h a v e b e e n d e te rr e d f ro m m a n u f

a c tu ri n g “ h u n d re d s m o re .” B . P roce dural H i s t ory P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a c o m p l a i n ti n th e D i s tr i c tC o u r ta g a i n s tth e B o r o u g h o f Y a r d l e y, M anage rW i ns l ade, C hi ef O ’ N ei l l , Sol i ci t orM cN amar a, and Pr es i dentH unt er as s ert i ng 3 f o u r c o u n ts: (I) a § 1 9 8 3 c laim f o r v io latio n o f

p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss a g a in st a ll D efe ndant s ; ( I I ) t or t i ous i nt er fer ence w i th contr actagai ns tM anage rW i ns l ade a nd C hi ef O ’ N ei l l ; ( I I I ) comm er ci al di s par agementagai ns tM anage rW i ns l ade, C hi ef O ’ N ei l l , and Pr es i dentH unt er ; and ( I V ) a r eques tfordecl ar at oryr el i ef a gai ns tal l D efe ndant s thattheT h e n o ti ce o f a p p ea l i n a c ivil ac ti o n m u st be fil ed w ith in thirtyd ay s af ter th e e n try 4 of the j ud gm ent appealed. F ed. R . A pp . P . 4(a) (1) (A ). If, ho w ever, the p artyfi l es a m ot i on t o al t eroramend t he j udgm entw i thi n the t i m e perm i t t ed underthe Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, the t i m e forfi l i ng the not i ce of appea l runs fr om the entryof the or der d is p o s in g o f

s u c h m o tio n . I

d. R . 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) ( i v) . Som e court s have tr eat ed a mot i on for l eave t o fi l e an a m ended c om pl ai ntas a mot i on t o al t eroramend, s o l ong as i ti s fi l ed w ith in te n d a y s a f

te r e n tryo f

th e ju d g m e n t. See, e. g. , T r o t t e rv . R eg e n t

s o f U n i v . o f N . M. , 2 1 9 F .3 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); see al so R anki n v. Heckl er , 761 F. 2d 936, 942 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( “R egar dl es s of how i ti s s ty l ed, a mot i on fi l ed w i thi n t en day s of entryof j udgm entques t i oni ng the corr ectnes s of a j udgm entm aybe tr eat ed as a mot i on t o al t eror amend t he j udgm entunderR ul e 59( e) . ”) . Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed thei rm ot i on t o amend w i thi n t en d a y s o f th e A u g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 o rd e r. See a l so Fed. R . C i v. P. 6( a) ( es t abl i s hi ng m annerof comput i ng t i m e) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s pos ed of the mot i on on Sept ember29, 2009, and 7 G ames a r e “ga m es of s ki l l thatar e l egal underthe l aw s of the C om m onw eal th of P e n n s y lv a n ia .” (A p p . a t 4 6 .) O n A u g u st 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d P lain tiff s’ c o m p lain t in its ent i r ety . T he C our tconcl uded thatPl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o i dent i fya pr ot ect ed pr opertyor l i bertyi nt er es tt o s uppor tC ountI and, r egar dl es s , D efe ndant s ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed im m u n ity . T h e C o u rt a lso d e ter m in e d th a t th e in d iv id u a l D e f e n d a n ts a re e n tit led to sta tu to ryim m u n ityf

ro m C o u n ts II a n d III, a n d th a t P lain tiff s f a iled to jo in in d isp e n sa b le part i es forC ountI V . Pl ai nt i ffs then s oughtl eave t o fi l e an a m ended c om pl ai nt , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed i n i t s Sept ember29, 2009 footnot e- or der . T he C ourts t at ed: “N ot o n lyis th e P ro p o se d A m e n d e d C o m p lain t su b sta n tiallysim ilar to th e o rig in a l co m p lain t, b u t th e p ro p o sa l als o f

a ils to a d d re ss th e iss u e o f p re ju d ice to th e a b se n t p a rties th a t w o u ld unques t i onabl ybe af

fec t ed bythe out come of thi s m att er . ” (I d. at18 n. 1. ) Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed th is tim e lya p p e a l. 4P lai n ti ff

s filed th eir no ti ce o f a p p ea l w ith in thirtyd ay s o f th at ord er. 8 II. Juri s di ct i on and St andards of R evi ew T he D i s tr i ctC our texer ci s ed s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on overPl ai nt i ffs ’ § 1983 claim p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 3 1 , an d ex erc ised su p p lem en tal juri sd ict ion o v er the tort and dec l ar at oryj udgm entact i ons pur s uantt o § 1367. T he C ourthad author i tyt o i s s ue decl ar at oryr el i ef unde r§ 2201. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under§ 1291 t o r evi ew an or der g ra n tin g a m o tio n to d is m is s . See, e. g. , P hi l l i ps v. C ount

y of A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 2 3 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew o v e r a d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r g ra n tin g a m o tio n to d is m is s u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ). Fow l erv. U PM CShadys i de , 5 7 8 F . 3 d 2 0 3 , 2 0 6 (3d C ir . 2009) . Fi r s t , w e mustdi s t i ngui s h betw een f actual al l egat i ons and l egal concl us i ons i n the compl ai nt ; s econd, i f the compl ai nts et s forth w el l - pl eade d fac tual al l egat i ons , w e may as s um e thei rver aci tyand dr aw i nfer ence s favor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng party , butthen m u s t d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e f a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s s h o w a n e n title m e n t to re lie f. P hi l l i ps , 5 1 5 F .3 d a t 2 3 3 -3 4 ; s ee Ashc r of tv. I qbal , 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 5 0 , 1 9 5 3 (2 0 0 9 ). O f c o u rs e , w h e th e r a c la im is p la u s ib le d e p e n d s o n th e n a tu re o f th e c la im a s s e rt e d . See Phi l l i

ps , 515 F. 3d at233. T hi s does noti m pos e a pr obabi l i tyr equi r ementatthe pl eadi ng s t age, buti ns t ead s i m pl ycal l s forenough fa ct s t o r ai s e a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on th a t d is c o v e ry w ill r e v e a l e v id e n c e o f th e n e c e s s a ry e le m e n ts o f th e c la im s . I

qbal , 12 9 S. C t. at 1 9 4 9 ; P hi l l i

ps , 515 F. 3d at234. A tthi s s t age of the l i t i gat i on, w e foc us on w hether9

th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt ys u f f ic ie n tly p le d its c la im s , n o t w h e th e r i t c a n p ro v e its c la im s . Fow l er , 578 F. 3d at213. W e al s o per form pl enaryr evi ew of a gr antof qual i fi ed i m m uni tyand appl ythe s a m e s ta n d a rd s a p p lic a b le to re v ie w o f R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n s . Leveto v. Lapi na , 258 F .3 d 1 5 6 , 1 6 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). T h e g ra n t o f im m u n ityw ill b e u p h e ld o n lyw h e n im m u n ity is e s ta b lis h e d o n th e f

a c e o f th e c o m p la in t. Thom as v. I ndepende nce Tw

p. , 463 F. 3d 285, 2 9 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e per form a bi fur cat ed r evi ew fordi s m i s s al s underR ul e 12( b) ( 7) : R ul e 19( a) concl us i ons of l aw ar e s ubj ectt o pl enaryr evi ew and fa ctual fi ndi ngs ar e r evi ew ed for cl earerr or , and a Rul e 19( b) det erm i nat i on thata partyi s i ndi s pens abl e i s r evi ew ed for a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See H

uberv. Tayl or , 53 2 F . 3d 23 7, 24 7 (3d C i r. 20 08 ). W e al so r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a mot i on forl eave t o fi l e an a m ended c om pl ai ntfor a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Tol lB r os . , I nc. v. Tw p. of R eadi ngton , 5 5 5 F . 3 d 1 3 1 , 1 3 7 (3d C ir . 2009) . “A n abus e of di s cr et i on ar i s es w hen the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on r es t s upon a cl ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ct , an err antconcl us i on of l aw oran i m pr operappl i cat i on of l aw t o fac t . ” N

LR B v. Fr az i er , 9 6 6 F . 2 d 8 1 2 , 8 1 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) (qu o tat ion s o m itted).

I I I . D i s cus s i on A . C ou n t I : § 198 3 P roced u ral D u e P rocess T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed Pl ai nt i ffs ’ § 1983 cl ai m fortw o r eas ons : ( 1) they fai l ed t o as s erta pr opertyorl i bertyi nt er es tpr ot ect ed bythe Fourt eenth A m endment , and10

(2) D ef en d an ts are en ti tl ed to q u ali fied im m u n ity . W e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d ism iss a l b e c a u se P lain tiff s h a v e n o t alle g e d d e p riv a tio n o f a p ro tec ted in ter e st. T he Four t eenth A m endmentpr ohi bi t s s t at e ac t i on w hi ch “de pr i ve[s ] anyper s on of l i f e , l i b e r ty , o rp r o p e r ty , wi th o u td u e p r o c e s s o f l a w. ” U. S. Con s t . a me n d . XI V, § 1 . To enabl e i ndi vi dual s t o enfor ce thes e r i ght s , C ongr es s enac t ed § 1983 as a fe der al caus e of act i on agai ns tdepr i vat i on of anyr i ght s , pr i vi l eges , ori m m uni t i es s ecur ed bythe C o n s titu tio n o r l a w s o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s . See Tow n of C as t l e Rock v. G onz al es , 54 5 U. S. 74 8, 75 5 (200 5). T o st at e a § 1 98 3 clai m , P l ai nti ffs m ustdem on strat e that D efen dan t s, act i ng underthe col orof s t at e l aw , depr i ved Pl ai nt i ffs of a r i ghts ecur ed bythe C o n s titu tio n o r t h e la w s o f th e U n ite d S ta te s . See Chai ney v . Str eet , 523 F. 3d 200, 219 (3d C i r. 20 08 ). P l ai nti ffs al l ege a v i olat i on of p rocedu ral du e process. T o es t abl i s h a pr ocedur al due pr oces s cl ai m under§ 1983, Pl ai nt i ffs m us tpr ove ( 1) a d ep ri v ati o n o f a n ind ividu al i n terest en co m p asse d b ythe F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t’ s pr ot ect i on of l i fe, l i berty , orpr operty , and ( 2) thatthe pr ocedur es avai l abl e di d not p ro v id e d u e p ro c e s s o f

la w . Se e Hi l lv . Bo r o u g h o f Ku t z t o wn , 455 F. 3d 225, 233- 34 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he fi r s ts t ep i n eval uat i ng a § 1983 cl ai m i s t o i dent i fythe exa ctcont our s of the under l y i ng r i ghtPl ai nt i ffs cl ai m w as vi ol at ed and t o det erm i ne w hethertheyhave a lle g e d d e p ri v a tio n o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t a t a ll. See Chai ney , 5 2 3 F .3 d a t 2 1 9 . Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue D efe ndant s depr i ved them of t hei rpr opertyand l i bertyi nt er es t s i n the rig h t to e n g a g e in a leg iti m a te b u sin e ss f re e f ro m a rb itrar ysta te d e p riv a tio n . W e w ill11

addr es s the pr opertyand l i bertychar act er i zat i ons i n turn. 1. P rop erty Interest P ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss d o e s n o t p ro tec t ev e ryb e n e f it; ra th e r, to h a v e a p ro p e rty i nt er es ti n a bene fi t , a per s on m us tcl ear l yhave mor e than an abs tr actneed ordes i r e and m o re th a n a u n ila te ra l e x p e c ta tio n o f re c e iv in g th e b e n e f

it. G onz al es , 5 4 5 U . S . at 75 6 . In cons t i tut i onal par l ance , the cl ai m antm us thave al egi t i m at e cl ai m of an “ ent i t l ement . ” I d. E nt i t l ement s , how ever , ar e notes t abl i s hed bythe C ons t i tut i on; r ather , theyar e cr eat ed and def i ned byexi s t i ng rul es orunder s t andi ngs thats t em from an i ndepende nts our ce, s u c h a s s ta te la w . I

d. A cl ai m antm us ts how an ent i t l ementt o a pr opertyi nt er es tcr eat ed b ya sta te s tatu te o r re g u latio n o r a risin g f ro m g o v e rn m e n t p o licyo r a m u tu a llye x p licit u n d e rs ta n d in g . C a rte r v . C ity o f P h ila de lp h ia , 9 8 9 F .2 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); s ee B ar aka v. McG r eev ey , 4 8 1 F .3 d 1 8 7 , 2 0 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); R o g e rs v . B u c k s C o u n ty D om es t i c Relat i ons Sect i on , 9 5 9 F .2 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 7 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). P lain tiff s c ite n o sta tu te, re g u latio n , g o v e rn m e n t p o licy , o r m u tu a llye x p licit u n d e rsta n d in g in th e ir c o m p lain t th a t w o u ld d e m o n stra te a n e n tit lem e n t to p u rsu e th e ir b u s in e s s in te re s ts . N o r h a v e P la in tif f s c ite d a n ys o u rc e f

o r t h e ire n title m e n t to th is C o u rt . T h u s, P lain tiff

s p led o n lya u n ilate ra l ex p e c tatio n o f a n in ter e st in o p e ra tin g th e ir bus i nes s , w hi ch i s nots uffi ci entt o pl ead a n ent i t l ementt o a pr opertyi nt er es tunderthe F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. 2. L i b erty Interest12

W e h a v e , h o w e v e r, re c o g n ize d a re lev a n t li b e rtyin ter e st – th e rig h t to h o ld sp e c if ic p riv a te e m p lo ym e n t an d to f o llo w a c h o se n p ro f

e ss io n f re e f ro m u n re a so n a b le g o v e rn m e n t in te rf

e re n c e . Se e P iec kn ickv . P e n n sy lva n ia , 3 6 F . 3 d 1 2 5 0 , 1 2 5 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). B u t th e C o n stitu tio n o n lyp ro tec ts th is lib e rtyf ro m sta te a c tio n s th a t th re a ten to depr i ve per s ons of the r i ghtt o pur s ue thei rchos en occ upat i on; s t at e ac t i ons thatexcl ude a p e rs o n f ro m o n e p a rt ic u la r j o b a re n o t a c tio n a b le in d u e p ro c e s s c la im s . See i d. T h u s, it i s the l i bertyi nt er es tt o pur s ue a c al l i ng oroccupa t i on, notthe r i ghtt o a s peci fi c j ob, that is s e c u re d b yth e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t. I d. a t 1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 2 ; s ee Thom as , 463 F. 3d at 2 9 7 ; L a tessa v. N

. J. R a cingC o m m ’n , 113 F. 3d 1313, 1317- 18 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . T her efor e, P lain tiff s m u st a lleg e a n in a b ili tyto o b tain e m p lo ym e n t w ith in th e f ield , n o t ju st a p a rt ic u la r j o b o r a t a s p e c if ic lo c a tio n o r f

a c ility. See, e. g. , L ates sa , 1 1 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 7 -1 8 . A s s um i ng Pl ai nt i ffs ’ al l egat i ons ar e true, theyhave be en unabl e t o l eas e addi t i onal G ames i n Penns y l vani a bec aus e of D efe ndant s ’ offi ci al not i fi cat i on l ett er . I n fac t , s ever al bus i nes s es have a cknow l edged thei rw i l l i ngnes s t o ent eri nt o comm er ci al r el at i ons hi ps w i th P l ai nti ffs bu tfor D efen dan t s’ declar at i on that the m achines ar e i l l egal. R egardl ess, atbes t , Pl ai nt i ffs have be en pr ecl uded fr om di s tr i but i ng onl ytw o G ames, and couns el conce ded atar gum entthatPl ai nt i ffs can s el l otherG ames i n otherl ocat i ons . A s s uch, P lain tiff s h a v e o n lyb e e n d e p riv e d o f th e sp e c if

ic jo b o f d istrib u tin g th e G a m e s in Penns y l vani a, buttheycan s t i l l engage i n the gene r al di s tr i but i on bus i nes s , t o s aynothi ng o f th e ira b ility to le a s e G a m e s in o th e r s ta te s . Se e B e rn a rdv . U n itedT w p . Hig h Sc h . D ist.T h e D istri ct C o u rtalso g ran ted D ef en d an ts qu ali fied im m u n ityfro m P lai n ti ff s’ § 5 19 83 cl ai m . O ur conc l usi on that Pl ai nti ffs w ere notdep ri ved of a p rot ect ed int eres t j us t i fi es the gr antof i m m uni ty . T he fi r s ti nqui ryunderqual i fi ed i m m uni tyr equi r es the C our tt o deci de w hetherthe fa ct s Pl ai nt i ffs have a l l eged c ons t i tut e a vi ol at i on of a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. See Pears on v. C al lahan , 12 9 S . C t . 80 8, 81 5-16 (20 09 ). B ecause w e conc l ude thatPl ai nt i ffs di d noti dent i fya pr ot ect ed pr opertyorl i bertyi nt er es t , they h a v e n o t alle g e d a v io latio n o f a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t. T h e re f o re , w e c o u ld a ltern a tiv e ly d is m is s C o u n t I o n th e b a s is o f q u a lif ie d im m u n ity. See i d. 13 N o. 30 , 5 F. 3d 1090, 1092- 93 ( 7th C i r . 1993) ( fi ndi ng no l i bertyi nt er es ti n di s tr i but i ng o n e p arti cu lar print be ca u se p lai n ti ff w as n o t prev en ted f

rom d istri b u ti n g o ther p ri n ts) ; s ee al s o Thom as , 4 6 3 F . 3 d at 29 7 (rev iew ing o ff ici al co n d u ct th at af

fe cted p lai n ti ff ’s e n tire b u sin e ss a n d lef

t p lain tiff

w ith n o o th e r o p tio n s). In d e e d , co u n se l f o r C h ief O ’N e ill acknow l edged a tar gum entthatPl ai nt i ffs w oul d be perm i t t ed t o di s tr i but e other u n q u e s t i o n a b l y l e g a l g a m e s i n th e B o r o u g h o f Y a r d l e y. C o n se q u e n tly , P lain tiff s h a v e f a iled to a ss e rt a p ro tec ted p ro p e rtyo r lib e rty i nt er es t , an es s ent i al el ementt o thei rpr ocedur al due pr oces s cl ai m . W e w i l l aff i rm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s dism issal of C o u n t I . 5 B. Co u n t s I I a n d I I I : To r t Cl a i ms T h e D istri ct C o u rtd ism issed P lai n ti ff s’ t o rtclaim s ag ains t Pre side n t H u n ter, M a n a g e r W in sla d e , an d C h ief O ’N e ill b e c a u se e a c h is e n tit led to sta tu to ryim m u n ity u n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia la w . T h e C o u rt a lso c o n c lu d e d th a t P lain tiff s d id n o t su f

f icie n tly p l e a d th a tD e f

e n d a n t s ’ c o n d u c tf

e l l w i th i n a s t a tu t o ry e x c e p t i o n t o th e g r a n to f i m m u n i ty. I n Penns y l vani a, “no l ocal agenc ys hal l be l i abl e foranydamages on acc ountof14

anyi nj uryt o a per s on orpr opertycaus ed byanyactof the l ocal agenc yoranyempl oy ee ther eof oranyotherper s on. ” 42 Pa. C ons . St at . § 8541. T he l ocal agenc y , how ever , m ay be l i abl e i f ( 1) the damages w oul d be r ecove r abl e i f ca us ed bya per s on nothavi ng i m m uni tyunder§ 8541, ( 2) the i nj uryw as caus ed bythe negl i gentactof the l ocal agenc y o r an em p loy ee ac ti n g w ith in the sco p e o f h is or h er o ff ice o r du ti es, an d (3) the injury f a lls w ith in a n e n u m e ra te d e x c e p tio n . I d. § 8 54 2. T he p art i es agree that none of these e x c e p t i o n s a p p l y. M or e pert i nentt o thi s m att er , an empl oy ee of a l ocal agenc yenj oy s the s ame sc ope o f im m u n ity a s th e a g e n c y . See i d. § 8545. Sect i on 8550, how ever , abr ogat es the empl oy ee’ s i m m uni tyi f “i ti s j udi ci al l ydet erm i ned thatthe ac tof the empl oy ee c aus ed the i nj uryand thats uch ac tcons t i tut ed a c r i m e, actual fr aud, actual m al i ce orw i l l ful m i s conduct . ” I

d. § 8 5 5 0 . “W i l l ful m i s conduct ” i s s ynonym ous w i th “i nt ent i onal t ort . ” D e la te v . Ko lle , 667 A .2 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 1 (P a . C o m m w . C t. 19 9 5 ). A c c o rd in g ly , the a c to r m u st h a v e d e sire d to b rin g a b o u t th e re su lt, o r m u st a t lea st h a v e k n o w n o r sh o u ld h a v e k n o w n th a t th e re su lt w a s s u b s ta n tia lly c e rt a in to f o llo w . See Kuzelv. Krause , 658 A . 2d 856, 859 ( Pa. C o m m w . C t. 19 9 5 ). T h u s, o u r in q u iryf o c u se s o n w h e th e r P lain tiff s p led su f

f icie n t f a c ts t o s how thes e D efe ndant s des i r ed the t erm i nat i on of the A gr eementort o caus e Pl ai nt i ffs to su f f e r p e c u n iar ylo ss , o r th a t D e f e n d a n ts k n e w o r sh o u ld h a v e k n o w n th o se re su lts w e re s u b s ta n tia lly c e rt a in to f o llo w . See al

s o Stoecki ngerv. P r es i dent i alF i n. C or p. of15

D el
. V al l ey , 948 A . 2d 828, 834 ( Pa. Super . C t . 2008) ( s t at i ng el ement s of t ort i ous in ter f e re n c e c laim ); P r o G ol

f M f g. , I nc. v. Tri bune Revi ew N ew s paperC o. , 809 A . 2d 243, 2 4 6 (P a. 20 0 2 ) (l ist ing elem en ts of co m m erc ial d ispa rag em en t cl aim ). W i th r egar d t o the t or t i ous i nt er fer ence cl ai m , Pl ai nt i ffs m ake ba r e as s ert i ons that M anage rW i ns l ade a nd C hi ef O ’ N ei l l act ed w i l l ful l yt o br i ng aboutthe t erm i nat i on of the A g ree m en t, w h ich is n o t suf ficien t un d er I

qbal , 1 2 9 S . C t. at 1 9 5 0 , 1 9 5 3 . T h e ym e re ly al l ege thatthe A gr eementaut om at i cal l yt erm i nat ed af t erD efe ndant s not i fi ed the Y ar dl ey A m er i can Legi on thatthe G ames a r e i l l egal . T hi s does notr evea l thatM anage rW i ns l ade or C hief O ’N ei l l desi red or w as subst anti al l ycert ai n the A greem ent w ou l d term i nate as a r es ul tof hi s conduct . T her efor e, the al l egat i ons fai l t o s how an ent i t l ementt o r el i ef. A s forthe comm er ci al di s par agementcl ai m , Pl ai nt i ffs al l ege thatPr es i dentH unt er adopt ed M anage rW i ns l ade’ s and C hi ef O ’ N ei l l ’ s act i ons , and thatthe adopt i on w as p u b lish e d o n th e B o ro u g h ’s w e b site . T h e yf u rth e r a lleg e th a t D e f

e n d a n ts re f

u se d to r es ci nd the off

i ci al not i fi cat i on notw i ths t andi ng Sol i ci t orM cN amar a’ s di s cl ai m erof author i ty . Pl ai nt i ffs then make a bar e as s ert i on thatD efe ndant s engage d i n thi s conduct to ca u se, or sh o u ld h av e k n o w n their co n d u ct w o u ld ca u se, P lai n ti ff s to su ff er p ec u n iary lo ss . P lain tiff

s a ss e rt n o f

a c ts to su p p o rt th is a lleg e d in ten t an d , the re f o re , the yf

a iled to s h o w a n e n title m e n t to re lie f. Se e id
. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i rm the di s m i s s al of C o u n ts I I an d III . C . C ountI V : D e c l ar at or y JudgmentSect i on 2201 gr ant s di s tr i ctcourt s author i tyt o “dec l ar e the r i ght s and otherl egal 6 re latio n s o f

a n yin ter e ste d p a rtyse e k in g su c h d e c lar a tio n .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 0 1 (a ). B u t § 2201 m er el yenl ar ges the r ange of r emedi es avai l abl e; i tdoes notcr eat e s ubj ectm att er ju ri s d ic tio n . Mack Tr ucks , I nc. v. I nt ’ lU ni on, U ni t ed Aut o. , A er os

pace & A gr i c. I mp l e me n tWo rke rs o

f A m. , 8 5 6 F . 2 d 5 7 9 , 5 8 3 n . 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). T h ere fo re, th e c o u rt m u st find an ind ep en d en t bas is fo r j u ri sd ict ion b ef o re itca n co n side r a d ec laratory ju d g m e n t a c tio n . I

d. Pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el confi rm ed atar gum entthatj ur i s di ct i on forthe decl ar at oryj udgm entact i on i s bas ed on s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on. W e have aff i rm ed the d is m is s a l o f

P la in tif f s ’ § 1 9 8 3 c la im , th e o n ly cl a im th a t a ri s e s u n d e r f e d e ra l la w . See 28 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 . T h u s, th e D istric t C o u rt m a yf in d it ap p ro p ria te to c o n sid e r w h e th e r it w ill exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overPl ai nt i ffs ’ r eques tfora dec l ar at i on thatthe G a m e s a re “ leg a l u n de r th e la w s o f th e C o m m o n w e a lth o

f P e n n sy lva n ia . ” ( See A pp. at46 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).) I n addi t i on, a dec l ar at oryj udgm enti s di s cr et i onaryand court s ar e underno c o m p u ls io n to e x e rc is e th a t d is c re tio n . S ta t e A u t o I n s . Co s . v . Su mmy , 234 F. 3d 131, 133 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). T h e c e n tra l q u e stio n is w h e th e r th e c o n tro v e rsy m a yb e tter b e se ttl e d in s ta te c o u rt . See U

nited S tates v. P enn sylvan i a, D ep’tof En vt l
. R es. , 923 F. 2d 1071, 1075 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). N o n e o f th e lim itatio n s o n th e c o u rt’s d isc re tio n a p p e a rs to e x ist in th is c a s e . Se e Su mmy , 234 F. 3d at134 ( ci t i ng D ep’tof En vt l
. R es. , 9 2 3 F . 2 d at 10 7 6 -79 ). 16 T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed Pl ai nt i ffs ’ r eques tfordecl ar at oryr el i ef be caus e they f a iled to jo in in d isp e n sa b le p a rties . O n a p p e a l, P lain tiff s a rg u e th a t th e p u rp o rte d ly i ndi s pens abl e part i es ar e notnece s s aryt o thi s act i on. T he B or ough D efe ndant s cont end that w e sh o u ld ab stai n u n d er B ur f or d v. Sun O i lC o. , 319 U . S. 315 ( 1943) . W e dec l i ne the i nvi t at i on t o abs t ai n and w i l l vaca t e the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s di s m i s s al becaus e the a lleg e d lyin d isp e n sa b le p a rties a re n o t n e c e ss a ry . O n re m a n d , the D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld cons i derw hetheri tw i s hes t o cont i nue t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overthi s cl ai m and, i f s o, w hetheri ts houl d exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on and dec l i ne t o gr antdecl ar at oryr el i ef. 6 1 . B u rf ord A bst ent i on W e t ake atw o- s t ep appr oach t o B ur f or d a b s te n tio n a n a lysis . M atusow v. T

rans-17

Count y Ti t l e Age nc

y , LLC , 5 4 5 F .3 d 2 4 1 , 2 4 7 -4 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); C hi r opr act i c Am . v. L a v e c c h ia , 180 F. 3d 99, 104- 05 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . Fi r s t , w e cons i derw hethert i m el yand a d e q u a te s ta te c o u rtre v ie w is a v a ila b le . Ch i r o p r a c t i c A m. , 1 8 0 F .3 d a t 1 0 4 . If th e re is not , abs t ent i on i s notappr opr i at e; how ever , i f ther e i s , w e then exa m i ne thr ee i s s ues : ( 1) w hetherthe part i cul arr egul at orys cheme i nvol ves m att er s of s ubs t ant i al publ i c conc ern, ( 2) w hetheri ti s the s or tof compl ex, t echni cal r egul at orys cheme t o w hi ch B urf ordis u su a llya p p lied , an d (3 ) w h e th e r f e d e ra l re v iew o f

P lain tiff s’ c laim s w o u ld in ter f

e re w ith P e n n s y lv a n ia ’s e f

f o rt s to e s ta b lis h a n d m a in ta in a c o h e re n t r e g u la to ry p o lic y . I d. at105;
s ee New O r l eans P ub. Ser v. , I nc. v. C ounci lof

C i t y of N ew O r l eans , 491 U . S. 350, 361 (19 8 9 ); s ee al

s o R i l ey v . Si m m ons , 4 5 F .3 d 7 6 4 , 7 7 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (s tatin g th a t co u rts pr ocee d t o s econd s t ep onl yi f ther e i s adequa t e and t i m el ys t at e r evi ew avai l abl e) . E ach o f th e s e f a c to rs n e e d n o t b e p re s e n t to w a rr a n t a b s te n tio n . Lac D ’ A m i ant e du Q uebec , Lt ee v . A m . H

om e Ass ur ance Co. , 8 6 4 F . 2 d 1 0 3 3 , 1 0 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). Penns y l vani a court s r out i nel ydeci de w hatconductcons t i tut es “gambl i ng” and w hethers uch conduc ti s “unl aw ful . ” M or eover , Penns y l vani a al l ow s part i es t o s eek d e c la ra to ry re lie f. See 4 2 P a . C o n s. S tat. § 7 5 3 2 . A s s u c h , the re is a d e q u a te a n d tim e ly re v iew a v a ilab le in sta te c o u rt. T h e re f o re , w e tu rn o u r f

o c u s to th e iss u e s id e n tifie d in C hi r opr act i c Am er i ca . 1 8 0 F .3 d a t 1 0 5 . T o im p lica te a m a tter o f su b sta n tial p u b lic c o n c e rn , the su it m u st b e f iled a g a in st a p a rt yp ro te c te d b yo r s u b je c t to th e re g u la to ry sc h e m e . See, e. g. , U ni v. of M d. atB al t . v.18

P eat Mar w i ck M

ai n & Co. , 92 3 F . 2d 26 5, 27 3-74 (3d C i r. 19 91 ). In this case, P l ai nti ffs, the part i es purpor t edl ys ubj ectt o the gambl i ng r egul at i ons , i ni t i at ed s ui tagai ns tpart i es w ho ar e nei thers ubj ectt o norpr ot ect ed by , and do noteven c ontr ol , the r egul at i ons at is s u e . T h e re f

o re , th is f

a c to r i s n o t im p lic a te d . T o i m pl i cat e the s or tof t echni cal , compl ex r egul at orys cheme t o w hi ch B urf ord abst enti on i s usual l yapp l i ed, the acti on m ustchall eng e the sche m e i t sel f, rather than j ust a c tio n s ta k e n u n d e r c o lo r o f th e s c h e m e . See Addi ct i on Speci al is t s , I nc. v. Tw p. of H am pt on , 4 1 1 F .3 d 3 9 9 , 4 0 9 -1 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); G w ynedd Props
. , I

nc. v. Low erG w

ynedd Tw p. , 9 7 0 F .2 d 1 1 9 5 , 1 2 0 2 -0 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ); I z z o v. B or ough of

R i verE dge , 843 F. 2d 7 6 5 , 7 6 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). T hi s cas e fa l l s w i thi n the l att ercat egory– Pl ai nt i ffs ar e not chal l engi ng the val i di tyof the gambl i ng r egul at i ons butr atherthe appl i cat i on of the rul es t o the G ames. Fur ther , the r egul at orys cheme does notappea rt o be al l - encompas s i ng or extr emel yi nt ertw i ned bec aus e Penns y l vani a court s have de vel oped comm on l aw pr i nci pl es t o i dent i fyw hatcons t i tut es “gambl i ng” and w hetheri ti s unl aw ful underthe c ri m in a l s ta tu te . See, e. g. , C om m onw eal th v. D ent , 992 A . 2d 190, 192- 93, 197 ( Pa. Super . C t . 2010) . A s s uch, thi s fac t oral s o i s noti m pl i cat ed. F inally , w e c o n side r w h ethe r fe d era l r ev iew o f P lai n ti ff s’ claim s w o u ld interfe re w ith P e n n s y lv a n ia ’s e f

f o rt s to e s ta b lis h a n d m a in ta in a c o h e re n t r e g u la to ry p o lic y . Ch i r o p r a c t i c A m. , 180 F. 3d at105. T he s t at e’ s i nt er es t , how ever , m us tbe veryi m por t ant

– a f e d e ra l c o u rtc a n n o t ju s t a b s ta in to a v o id d is ru p tin g th e s c h e m e . P eat Mar w i ck , 923T he D i stri ctC ou rti den t i fi ed these part i es based o n P l ai nti ffs’ com plai nt. T hese 7 part i es i ncl ude: the C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a; the PG C B ; the B C L E ; the Penns y l vani a A t t orneyG ener al ; and the D i s tr i ctA t t orneyof B ucks C ounty , Penns y l vani a. 19 F. 2d at272. R egar dl es s of the i m por t ance of Penns y l vani a’ s r egul at i on of gambl i ng, the otherfac t or s w ei gh agai ns tabs t ent i on. T her efor e, w e w i l l notabs t ai n. 2. I ndi s pensabl e Part i es T h e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d C o u n t IV b e c a u se it i d e n tifie d C o m m o n w e a lth en ti ti es itco n clud ed w ere ind ispe n sab le i n reso lving P lai n ti ff s’ claim fo r de clarato ry reli ef. T h e C o u rt , h o w ev er, erred in it s an aly sis of w h ethe r th e e n ti ti es w ere n ec essa ry 7 un der R ule 19(a) ; therefore, w e w i l l vacate the d i sm i ssal on this basi s. R u le 1 9 a n a lysis is a tw o -s te p p ro c e s s . G en. R ef ract ori es C o. v. F i rst

State Ins. C o. , 500 F. 3d 306, 312 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . T he courtm us tfi r s tdet erm i ne w hetherthe abs ent p a rt ie s a re “ n e c e s s a ry” u n d e r R u le 1 9 (a ). I d. If th e p a rties a re n e c e ss a ry , an d jo in d e r is notfea s i bl e, then the courtm us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe part i es ar e “i ndi s pens abl e” unde r R u le 1 9 (b ). I

d. A h o lding that joind er is co m p u lsoryu n d er R u le 19 (a) is a n ec essa ry p re d ic a te to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is c re tio n a ry d e te rm in a tio n u n d e r R u le 1 9 (b ). I d. a t 3 1 3 . R ule 19 prov i des: “A p erson w ho i s s ubj ectt o s ervi ce of pr oces s and w hos e j oi nderw i l l not d e p r i v e th e c o u r to f

s u b j e c t - ma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n mu s t b e j o i n e d a s a p a r tyi f: ( A) i n thatper s on’ s abs ence , the courtcannotaccord c om pl et e r el i ef a m ong exi s t i ng part i es ; or( B ) thatper s on cl ai m s an i nt er es tr el at i ng t o the s ubj ectof the ac t i on and i s s o s i tuat ed thatdi s pos i ng of t he act i on i n the per s on’ s abs ence m ay : ( i ) as a pra ct i cal m att er i m pai r ori m pede the per s on’ s abi l i tyt o pr ot ect the i nt er es t ; or( i i ) l eav e an exi s t i ng partys ubj ectt o a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of20

i nc u rr i n g d o ub l e , mul t i pl e, orotherw i s e i ncons i s t entobl i gat i ons becaus e of the in te re s t.” Fed. R . C i v. P. 19( a) ( 1) . Subse ct i on ( a) ( 1) ( A ) i s l i m i t ed t o cons i der at i ons of w hetherthe c o u rt c a n g ra n t co m p lete re lief to p e rso n s a lre a d yn a m e d ; th e e f f e c t o n u n n a m e d p a rties is im m a te ri a l. See G en. R ef r actor i es C o. , 5 0 0 F .3 d a t 3 1 3 . Subse ct i on ( a) ( 1) ( B ) , how ever , r equi r es the courtt o t ake i nt o cons i der at i on the e f f e c t th e re s o lu tio n o f

th e d is p u te m a yh a v e o n a b s e n t p a rt ie s . I d. at31 6. U nd er the fir st prong of sub sect i on (a) (1) (B ), a partym ustshow that s om e ou t com e of the fed eral case w ou l d p recl ud e the ab sentpart i es w i th respectt o an i ssue m at eri al t o the absent part i es’ ri g h ts o r d u tie s . See i d. A n as s ert i on thata di s pos i t i on w oul d amountt o per s uas i ve p re c e d e n t, h o w e v e r, i s n o t s u f f ic ie n t. See H

uber , 532 F. 3d at250. I n addi t i on, conce rns re g a rd in g p ri v ity a n d th e p o s s ib ility o f p re c lu s io n a re to o s p e c u la tiv e to re q u ir e jo in d e r. See i d. a t 2 5 1 . T he s econd pr ong of ( a) ( 1) ( B ) focus es on the obl i gat i ons of named part i es , not a b s e n t p a rt ie s . See, e. g. , Kew eenaw B ay I ndi an C m t

y. v. Mi chi

gan , 11 F. 3d 1341, 1347 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); N

or thr op C or

p. v. McD onnel lD ouglas C or p. , 705 F. 2d 1030, 1043 n. 15 ( 9th C i r . 1983) . Fur ther , an uns ubs t ant i at ed ors pecul at i ve r i s k w i l l nots at i s fyR ul e 19( a) c ri te ri a – th e p o s s ib ility o f e x p o s u re to m u ltip le o r i n c o n s is te n t o b lig a tio n s m u s t b e re a l. See 7 C h a rl e s A la n W ri g h t, A rt h u r R . M ille r & M a ry K a yK a n e , Feder alP r act i ce & P rocedu re § 1 6 0 4 , at 64 (3d ed . 2 0 0 1 ). B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noti ndi cat e w hi ch s ubs ect i on of R ul e 19( a) i tr el i ed21

o n , w e w ill c o n s id e r e a c h . S u b s e c tio n (a )( 1 )( A ) d o e s n o t a p p ly to a b s e n t p a rt ie s . Subse ct i on ( a) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) , how ever , does appl yt o abs entpart i es , and the B or ough D efe ndant s cl ai m thata dec i s i on i n fede r al courtw oul d i m pai rori m pede the unnamed ent i t i es ’ i nt er es ti n cons i s t entr egul at i on of gambl i ng i n Penns y l vani a. N otw i ths t andi ng th e m e rit o f

th is in ter e st, a d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t in P lain tiff s’ f a v o r w o u ld a m o u n t to nothi ng m or e than per s uas i ve pr ece denti n anys ubs equentm att erand l i kel yw oul d not p rec lud e the en ti ti es f

rom init iat ing p roc ee d ing s in state co u rtfo r a c o n tr ary det erm i nat i on. T hes e conc erns , how ever , ar e nots uffi ci entt o r enderthe ent i t i es n e c e s s a ry u n d e r R u le 1 9 (a ), a n d th e p ro s p e c t o f a n yf u tu re a c tio n is p u re ly sp e c u la tiv e . See H uber , 532 F. 3d at250- 51; G en. R ef r actor i es C o. , 5 0 0 F . 3 d a t3 1 5 n . 1 3 , 3 1 7 . As s u c h , th e s e a b s e n t p a rt ie s a re n o t n e c e s s a ry u n d e r R u le 1 9 (a )( 1 )( B )( i) . I n addi t i on, the C om m onw eal th ent i t i es ar e notnece s s aryunders ubs ect i on ( a) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) . T hi s s ubs ect i on focus es on the ef fec ton obl i gat i ons of named part i es , and th e re is n o re a l r is k o f

m u ltip le o r i n c o n s is te n t o b lig a tio n s to a n yo f th e n a m e d p a rt ie s . A nyant i ci pat ed r eac t i on bythe C om m onw eal th ent i t i es i s pur el ys pecul at i ve and, th e re f o re , n o t s u f

f ic ie n t to s a tis f

yR u le 1 9 (a ) c ri te ri a . A ccor di ngl y , the C om m onw eal th ent i t i es ar e notnece s s aryunderR ul e 19, and the D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t th e yw e re in d is p e n s a b le c a n n o t s ta n d . See H uber , 532 F. 3d at251. T her efor e, w e w i l l vaca t e the di s m i s s al of C ountI V , w i th i ns truct i ons t o the D i s tr i ctC our tt o cons i deri t s cont i nui ng j ur i s di ct i on and i t s exer ci s e of di s cr et i on.22 D . M ot i on f

or Leav e t o Fi l e an Am e nde d C ompl ai nt A partym ayamend a fi l i ng as a mat t erof cour s e ( 1) befor e bei ng s erved w i th a r es pons i ve pl eadi ng or( 2) w i thi n tw entyday s aft ers ervi ce i f a r es pons i ve pl eadi ng i s not a l l owed a nd the a c t i on ha s no ty e tbe e n p l a c e d o n the tr i a l c a l e nd a r . Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 1 5 (a)(1). “In a ll o ther c ase s, a p artym ayam en d it s p lead ing o n lyw ith . . . the c o u rt ’s l eave . T he courts houl d fr eel ygi ve l eave w hen j us t i ce s o r equi r es . ” I d. R . 1 5 (a )( 2 ). If a c o m p lain t is su b

jec t to a R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) d ism iss a l, a d istric t co u rt m u st p e rm it a cur at i ve amendm ent , even i f the partydoes notr eques tl eave , unl es s s uch an a m endment w o u ld b e in e q u ita b le o r f u tile . See Phi l l i

ps , 5 1 5 F .3 d a t 2 4 5 ; A l

s t on v. P arker , 363 F. 3d 229, 235, 236 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( perm i t t i ng deni al of amendm entonl yon gr ounds of bad fai th, undue del ay , pr ej udi ce, orfut i l i ty ) . “Fut i l i ty ” means thatthe compl ai nt , as a m e n d e d , w o u ld s till f

a il to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h re lie f c o u ld b e g ra n te d . In re B ur l i ngt on C oatFactor y Sec . Li t ig. , 114 F. 3d 1410, 1434 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . I n as s es s i ng f u tilit y , w e a p p ly th e s a m e le g a l- s u f f ic ie n c ys ta n d a rd a s ap p lie s u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ). I d. In th is c a se , the D istric t C o u rt d e n ied P lain tiff s’ m o tio n f

o r le a v e to a m e n d , in p a rt, b e c a u s e th e a m e n d e d c o m p la in t d id n o t a d d re s s th e d e f ic ie n c ie s in th e o ri g in a l c o m p la in t. A lth o u g h th e c o u rtd id n o t e x p lic itly sa ys o , it a p p a re n tly d e n ie d le a v e b a s e d o n f u tilit y . W e agr ee thatPl ai nt i ffs ’ pr opos ed amendm entw oul d be fut i l e. T he amended c o m p lain t still d o e s n o t id e n tifya p ro tec ted lib e rtyo r p ro p e rtyin ter e st e ss e n tial to Pl ai nt i ffs ’ pr ocedur al due pr oces s cl ai m . Fur ther , the amended compl ai nts t i l l onl ym akes23

bar e as s ert i ons thatthe conduc tof Pr es i dentH unt er , M anage rW i ns l ade, and C hi ef O ’ N ei l l cons t i tut ed w i l l ful m i s conduct– Pl ai nt i ffs al l ege thatthei rnew al l egat i ons es t abl i s h thatthe conduc tw as “unl aw ful ” and “ unr eas onabl e, ” butnothi ng theyal l ege show s that these D efen dan t s desi red the term i nati on of the A greem ent ordesi red t o cau se p e c u n ia ry lo s s , o r t h a t th e yw e re s u b s ta n tia lly c e rt a in s u c h re s u lts w o u ld o c c u r. See Kuz el , 6 5 8 A .2 d a t 8 5 9 ; s ee al s o I qbal , 129 S. C t . at1950, 1953 ( expl ai ni ng pl eadi ng b u rd e n ). T h e re f

o re , D e f e n d a n ts re m a in e n title d to im m u n ity u n d e r P e n n s y lv a n ia la w . F in a lly , P lain tiff

s’ c laim f

o r d e c lar a to ryre lief

is n o t p a rt o f

th e ir a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. P lain tiff s’ p ro p o se d a m e n d m e n t still f a ils to sta te a c laim u p o n w h ich re lief c o u ld b e g ra n te d a n d , th e re f

o re , is f u tile . See In re B url i ng t on C oa t Factory , 1 1 4 F .3 d a t 1 4 3 4 . A s s u c h , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n , an d w e w ill a f f irm th e d e n ial. I V . C oncl usi on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i rm the A ugus t21, 2009 or derdi s m i s s i ng C o u n ts I, II, a n d III, b u t v a c a te th a t p o rtio n o f th e o rd e r d ism iss in g C o u n t IV . W e w ill a f f i rm th e S e p t e mb e r2 9 , 2 0 0 9 o r d e rd e n y i n g l e a v e t o a me n d P l a i n t i f f s ’ c o mp l a i n t . On rem and , the D i stri ctC ou rtshou l d co nsi der w hetheri tw i shes t o co nti nu e t o ex erci se su b ject m att er jurisdicti o n o v er P lai n ti ff s’ req u est fo r a d ec laratoryjud g m en t. If the co u rt r et ai ns j ur i s di ct i on, i ts houl d cons i derw hetheri ts houl d exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on and dec l i ne t o gr antthe r eques t ed r el i ef.