Title: Debra Johnson v. Jefferson County Racing Association, Inc., d/b/a the Birmingham Race Course (Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court: CV-06-6921). Affirmed. No Opinion.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1100844
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: August 24, 2012

R e l : 08/24/2012 
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 
t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r 
o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may 
be 
made b e f o r e 
t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
SPECIAL TERM, 2012 
1100844 
Debra Johnson 
v. 
Jefferson County Racing Association, Inc., d/b/a the 
Birmingham Race Course 
Appeal from Jefferson C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-06-6921) 
PER CURIAM. 
AFFIRMED. 
NO OPINION. 
See R u l e 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) and (a) 
( 2 ) ( F ) , A l a . 
R. App. P. 
Malone, C.J., and W o o d a l l , S t u a r t , B o l i n , Murdock, Shaw, 
and Wise, J J . , 
concur. 
P a r k e r , J . , d i s s e n t s . 
1100844 
PARKER, J u s t i c e 
( d i s s e n t i n g ) . 
Because I am d i s s e n t i n g f r o m a n o - o p i n i o n a f f i r m a n c e , a 
b r i e f r e c i t a t i o n o f the f a c t s i s n e c e s s a r y t o summarize Debra 
Johnson's 
a c t i o n 
a g a i n s t 
the 
J e f f e r s o n 
County 
R a c i n g 
A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . , d/b/a the Birmingham Race Course 
("JCRA"). 
T h i s i s not t h e f i r s t time t h i s a c t i o n has come b e f o r e 
t h i s 
C o u r t . 
In Johnson v. J e f f e r s o n County R a c i n g A s s ' n , I n c . , 1 
So. 3d 960 ( A l a . 
2008) ("Johnson I " ) , 
t h i s C o u r t s e t f o r t h the 
f a c t s and p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y o f t h i s a c t i o n , as f o l l o w s : 
"Johnson b r o u g h t the p r e s e n t a c t i o n 
f o l l o w i n g 
t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n B a r b e r v. J e f f e r s o n County  
R a c i n g A s s ' n , I n c . , 960 So. 2d 599, 604 ( A l a . 
2006), 
i n w h i c h we d e t e r m i n e d t h a t an a c t i v i t y 
a d v e r t i s e d 
as 
'Quincy's 
MegaSweeps' 
('the 
MegaSweeps') 
i n i t i a t e d by I n n o v a t i v e Sweepstakes Systems, I n c . , 
at the Birmingham Race Course ' i n v o l v e [ d ] the use of 
s l o t machines,' a g a m b l i n g d e v i c e t h a t i s i l l e g a l i n 
Alabama. Johnson sued JCRA p u r s u a n t t o § 8-1-150(a), 
A l a . 
Code 1975,
2 on h e r own b e h a l f and on b e h a l f of 
a c l a s s o f s i m i l a r l y 
s i t u a t e d p e r s o n s , s e e k i n g t o 
r e c o v e r money t h a t she, and 
o t h e r s , had p a i d t o 
p a r t i c i p a t e i n the MegaSweeps. 
"JCRA moved the t r i a l c o u r t t o compel Johnson t o 
a r b i t r a t e 
her 
c l a i m s 
and 
t o 
d i s m i s s 
Johnson's 
a c t i o n . JCRA argued t h a t by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the 
MegaSweeps, Johnson had a s s e n t e d t o the a r b i t r a t i o n 
p r o v i s i o n 
found i n the 
' o f f i c i a l 
r u l e s ' 
f o r the 
MegaSweeps 
('the MegaSweeps 
c o n t r a c t ' ) .
3 
Johnson 
opposed JCRA's m o t i o n , a r g u i n g t h a t JCRA c o u l d not 
e s t a b l i s h a v a l i d c o n t r a c t c a l l i n g f o r a r b i t r a t i o n . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , 
Johnson argued t h a t 
the MegaSweeps 
c o n t r a c t 
amounted 
t o 
a 
c o n t r a c t 
founded 
on 
a 
2 
1100844 
g a m b l i n g 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n 
and 
t h a t , 
t h e r e f o r e , t h e 
c o n t r a c t 
i s 
v o i d 
and 
u n e n f o r c e a b l e 
under 
§ 
8-1-150(a), A l a . Code 1975. Johnson 
a l t e r n a t i v e l y 
argued t h a t , even i f 
t h e MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t i s 
n o t 
v o i d i n i t s e n t i r e t y , because one o f t h e MegaSweeps 
r u l e s 
i n c l u d e s 
a 
v o i d - w h e r e - p r o h i b i t e d - b y - l a w 
p r o v i s i o n , t h e a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e 
found i n t h o s e 
r u l e s i s v o i d and 
u n e n f o r c e a b l e . 
"The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
n o t e d 
t h a t 
'the c r u x 
o f 
[ J o h n s o n ] ' s 
c o m p l a i n t 
i s t h a t t h e agreement as a 
whole, 
i n c l u d i n g the a r b i t r a t i o n 
p r o v i s i o n , was 
r e n d e r e d v o i d o r i n v a l i d by t h e C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n 
B a r b e r [v. J e f f e r s o n County R a c i n g A s s ' n , I n c . , 
960 
So. 
2d 599 ( A l a . 
2 0 0 6 ) ] . ' 
R e l y i n g on t h e U n i t e d 
S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' s 
d e c i s i o n i n Buckeye Check  
C a s h i n g , I n c . 
v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S. C t . 
1204, 
163 L. Ed. 2d 1038 
(2006), 
t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
then d e t e r m i n e d t h a t because Johnson's c h a l l e n g e was 
t o t h e MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t as a whole, r a t h e r t h a n 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e 
s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e i s s u e o f 
the 
v a l i d i t y o f t h e c o n t r a c t was t o be d e c i d e d by 
the 
a r b i t r a t o r . 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
t h e n 
d i s m i s s e d 
Johnson's a c t i o n and o r d e r e d 
t h a t she a r b i t r a t e 
h e r 
c l a i m s . 
"Johnson moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a l t e r , amend, 
or v a c a t e i t s o r d e r under R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P. I n h e r m o t i o n , Johnson r e a s s e r t e d and 
c l a r i f i e d 
the arguments she had made i n h e r b r i e f 
o p p o s i n g 
JCRA's motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n , b u t she a l s o 
argued t h a t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t s h o u l d have s t a y e d t h e 
a c t i o n p e n d i n g a r b i t r a t i o n i n s t e a d o f d i s m i s s i n g 
i t . 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
d e n i e d 
h e r m o t i o n . 
Johnson 
now 
a p p e a l s , 
a r g u i n g 
t h a t 
n e i t h e r 
t h e 
MegaSweeps 
c o n t r a c t nor t h e a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e 
i t s e l f i s v a l i d 
or e n f o r c e a b l e . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , Johnson argues t h a t , 
even i f 
we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e i s 
v a l i d and e n f o r c e a b l e , t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t s h o u l d have 
s t a y e d , 
r a t h e r t h a n d i s m i s s e d , h e r a c t i o n p e n d i n g 
the outcome o f a r b i t r a t i o n . 
3 
1100844 
"
2 S e c t i o n 8-1-150(a), A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : 
"'(a) 
A l l c o n t r a c t s founded i n whole 
or i n p a r t on a g a m b l i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n are 
v o i d . Any p e r s o n who has p a i d any money o r 
d e l i v e r e d any t h i n g of v a l u e l o s t upon any 
game 
or wager 
may 
r e c o v e r such money, 
t h i n g , o r i t s 
v a l u e by an a c t i o n commenced 
w i t h i n s i x months from the t i m e of such 
payment or d e l i v e r y . ' 
"
3The 
r e l e v a n t 
p o r t i o n s 
of 
the 
'Quincy's 
MegaSweeps O f f i c i a l Sweepstakes R u l e s ' p r o v i d e : 
"'1. 
No Purchase N e c e s s a r y t o Win. 
A 
p u r c h a s e 
w i l l 
not improve 
the chance 
of 
w i n n i n g . V o i d where p r o h i b i t e d by law. 
" '  
"'3. 
R u l e s Are B i n d i n g . 
P a r t i c i p a t i o n 
i n the Sweepstakes c o n s t i t u t e s an e n t r a n t ' s 
u n d e r s t a n d i n g 
o f , 
and 
f u l l 
and 
u n c o n d i t i o n a l agreement t o and a c c e p t a n c e 
o f , 
t h e s e O f f i c i a l R u l e s . 
" '  
"'8. 
A r b i t r a t i o n 
and D i s p u t e s . As 
a 
c o n d i t i o n 
of 
p a r t i c i p a t i n g 
i n 
t h i s 
Sweepstakes, 
e n t r a n t agrees t h a t any 
and 
a l l 
d i s p u t e s 
w h i c h 
cannot 
be 
r e s o l v e d 
between the p a r t i e s , c l a i m s and causes of 
a c t i o n 
a r i s i n g 
out o f o r c o n n e c t e d 
w i t h 
t h i s Sweepstakes, or any p r i z e s awarded, or 
the 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n of 
w i n n e r s 
s h a l l 
be 
r e s o l v e d 
i n d i v i d u a l l y , 
w i t h o u t r e s o r t t o 
any form of c l a s s a c t i o n and e x c l u s i v e l y by 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
p u r s u a n t 
t o 
the 
commercial 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
r u l e s 
of 
the 
A m e r i c a n 
A r b i t r a t i o n 
A s s o c i a t i o n , 
then 
e f f e c t i v e . 
F u r t h e r , 
i n any 
such 
d i s p u t e , 
under 
no 
4 
1100844 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
w i l l e n t r a n t be p e r m i t t e d 
t o 
o b t a i n 
awards 
f o r , 
and 
e n t r a n t 
hereby 
w a i v e s 
a l l r i g h t s t o 
c l a i m [ , ] 
p u n i t i v e , 
i n c i d e n t a l 
or 
c o n s e q u e n t i a l 
damages, 
i n c l u d i n g 
but 
not 
l i m i t e d 
t o 
a t t o r n e y s ' 
f e e s , 
o u t - o f - p o c k e t 
expenses, 
c o s t s 
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e n t e r i n g the Sweepstakes, 
and/or 
any 
o t h e r 
damages, 
and 
e n t r a n t 
f u r t h e r w a i v e s a l l r i g h t s t o have damages 
m u l t i p l i e d 
or 
i n c r e a s e d . 
A l l i s s u e s 
and 
q u e s t i o n s 
c o n c e r n i n g 
the 
c o n s t r u c t i o n , 
v a l i d i t y , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 
and e n f o r c e a b i l i t y 
of t h e s e O f f i c i a l R u l e s , or the r i g h t s and 
o b l i g a t i o n s 
of 
e n t r a n t 
and 
Sponsor 
i n 
c o n n e c t i o n 
w i t h t h i s Sweepstakes, s h a l l 
be 
governed by, 
and 
c o n s t r u e d 
i n a c c o r d a n c e 
w i t h , 
the 
laws of 
the 
S t a t e 
of Alabama, 
w i t h o u t 
g i v i n g e f f e c t t o the 
c o n f l i c t 
of 
laws 
r u l e s 
t h e r e o f , 
and 
a l l p r o c e e d i n g s 
s h a l l t a k e p l a c e i n t h a t S t a t e i n the C i t y 
of Birmingham, County of J e f f e r s o n . ' " 
Johnson I , 1 So. 3d a t 961-63 ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . 
T h i s C o u r t 
i n Johnson I d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t 
c o n t a i n e d 
a v a l i d and e n f o r c e a b l e 
a r b i t r a t i o n agreement, r e g a r d l e s s 
of 
the i n v a l i d i t y of the MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t as a whole. 
R e l y i n g 
upon the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s i s , t h i s C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n agreement was 
s e v e r a b l e from the remainder of the 
i n v a l i d MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t : 
"Johnson 
argues 
t h a t 
JCRA 
cannot meet 
i t s 
i n i t i a l burden of d e m o n s t r a t i n g the e x i s t e n c e of a 
c o n t r a c t 
c a l l i n g 
f o r 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
because, 
she 
a r g u e s , 
'under t h i s C o u r t ' s unanimous d e c i s i o n i n 
B a r b e r [v. J e f f e r s o n County R a c i n g A s s ' n , I n c . , 
960 
So. 
2d 
599 
( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ] , 
the MegaSweeps 
c o n t r a c t s 
5 
1100844 
r e l i e d on by the JCRA are v o i d ab i n i t i o . ' Johnson's 
b r i e f a t 15 
(emphasis i n the o r i g i n a l ) . 
" S e c t i o n 8-1-150(a), A l a . Code 1975, 
p r o v i d e s : 
" ' A l l c o n t r a c t s founded i n whole or i n p a r t 
on a g a m b l i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n are v o i d . 
Any 
p e r s o n who 
has p a i d any money or d e l i v e r e d 
any 
t h i n g of v a l u e 
l o s t upon any game or 
wager may 
r e c o v e r such money, t h i n g , or i t s 
v a l u e 
by 
an 
a c t i o n commenced w i t h i n 
s i x 
months from the 
time of such payment 
or 
d e l i v e r y . ' 
"Johnson contends t h a t 
the MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t 
i s 
v o i d under § 8-1-150 because, she 
s a y s , 
t h i s C o u r t 
i n B a r b e r 
' h e l d t h a t , as a m a t t e r of Alabama 
law, 
p l a y i n g 
the 
MegaSweeps 
i n v o l v e d 
the 
payment 
of 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n 
t o gamble.' Johnson's 
b r i e f 
a t 
17. 
Johnson thus c o n c l u d e s t h a t the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e 
i n the MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t i s u n e n f o r c e a b l e because, 
she a r g u e s , under Alabama law '"when a c o n t r a c t i s 
u t t e r l y v o i d , i t does not have any 
e x i s t e n c e 
even 
f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of one who 
r e l i e d and a c t e d upon 
i t 
w i t h o u t 
n o t i c e 
of 
i t s i n f i r m i t y . " ' 
Johnson's 
b r i e f a t 15 
( q u o t i n g M e t r o p o l i t a n 
L i f e I n s . Co. 
v. 
 
B r a m l e t t , 
224 
A l a . 
473, 
475, 
140 
So. 
752, 
753 
(1932)). JCRA, however, argues t h a t Johnson cannot 
a v o i d 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
by 
c h a l l e n g i n g 
the 
v a l i d i t y 
or 
l e g a l i t y 
of 
the MegaSweeps 
c o n t r a c t 
as 
a 
whole, 
r a t h e r than the 
a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e 
i t s e l f . JCRA i s 
c o r r e c t . 
" R e c e n t l y , 
i n Paragon L t d . , I n c . v. B o l e s , 
987 
So. 
2d 561, 
567 
( A l a . 2007), t h i s C o u r t r e j e c t e d an 
argument s i m i l a r 
t o the 
one 
Johnson now 
makes. 
In 
t h a t 
case E m i l y 
B o l e s sued Paragon 
a l l e g i n g 
t h a t 
Paragon 
had 
b r e a c h e d 
a 
c o n s t r u c t i o n 
c o n t r a c t 
by 
f a i l i n g 
t o complete the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a house 
and 
o v e r c h a r g i n g 
B o l e s f o r the work i t had 
completed. 
Paragon responded by a r g u i n g 
' t h a t the 
c o n s t r u c t i o n 
c o n t r a c t 
c o n t a i n e d 
a 
v a l i d 
and 
e n f o r c e a b l e 
6 
1100844 
a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e , w h i c h r e q u i r e d t h a t any 
d i s p u t e 
r e l a t e d t o the c o n t r a c t be s e t t l e d by 
a r b i t r a t i o n . ' 
987 
So. 
2d a t 562. 
B o l e s a r g u e d i n response t h a t , 
'under § 34-14A-14, A l a . Code 1975, 
Paragon 
[could] 
not m a i n t a i n 
an a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e 
any p r o v i s i o n of 
the 
c o n t r a c t , 
i n c l u d i n g 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e , 
because 
... 
Paragon a d m i t t e d 
[to the Alabama Home 
B u i l d e r s L i c e n s u r e Board] t h a t i t had engaged i n the 
c o n s t r u c t i o n of B o l e s ' s r e s i d e n c e w i t h o u t h o l d i n g a 
r e q u i r e d l i c e n s e . ' Paragon, 987 
So. 2d a t 
567. 
" T h i s C o u r t f i r s t n o t e d i n Paragon t h a t 
B o l e s ' s 
argument, 
l i k e Johnson's argument i n the case 
now 
b e f o r e 
us, 
' c l e a r l y 
a t t a c k s 
Paragon's 
a b i l i t y 
t o 
e n f o r c e 
the 
c o n t r a c t 
as 
a 
whole 
and 
does 
not 
s p e c i f i c a l l y 
a t t a c k 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e 
w i t h i n 
the 
c o n t r a c t . ' 
987 
So. 
2d a t 567. 
T h i s C o u r t 
a l s o 
s t a t e d 
t h a t 
' [ i ] t i s 
w e l l 
e s t a b l i s h e d 
t h a t 
c h a l l e n g e s 
t o 
the 
v a l i d i t y 
of 
the 
c o n t r a c t 
as 
a 
whole and not s p e c i f i c a l l y t o the a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e 
w i t h i n the c o n t r a c t must go t o the a r b i t r a t o r , 
not 
a c o u r t . ' Paragon, 987 So. 2d a t 567; 
see a l s o Prima  
P a i n t Corp. v. F l o o d 
& C o n k l i n Mfg. 
Co., 
38 8 
U.S. 
395, 
403-04, 
87 
S. 
C t . 
1801, 
18 
L. 
Ed. 
2d 
1270 
(1967) 
( ' A c c o r d i n g l y , 
i f the c l a i m i s f r a u d i n the 
inducement of the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e 
i t s e l f 
-- 
an 
i s s u e which goes t o the "making" of the agreement t o 
a r b i t r a t e 
-- 
the 
f e d e r a l 
c o u r t 
may 
p r o c e e d 
t o 
a d j u d i c a t e 
i t . But the s t a t u t o r y language does 
not 
p e r m i t the f e d e r a l c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r c l a i m s of f r a u d 
i n 
the 
inducement 
of 
the 
c o n t r a c t 
g e n e r a l l y . ' 
( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) ) . R e l y i n g on the U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
Supreme C o u r t 
d e c i s i o n 
i n Buckeye Check 
C a s h i n g ,  
I n c . v. Cardegna, 
[546 
U.S. 
440 
(2006),] the same 
d e c i s i o n 
r e l i e d 
on 
by 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t h e r e , 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
i n Paragon c o n c l u d e d 
t h a t 
'the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e i n the c o n t r a c t between Paragon and B o l e s i s 
e n f o r c e a b l e , 
and i t i s i r r e l e v a n t whether Paragon's 
a c t i o n s r e n d e r the 
c o n t r a c t as a whole v o i d . That 
q u e s t i o n 
i s f o r the a r b i t r a t o r t o d e c i d e , 
not 
t h i s 
C o u r t . ' Paragon, 987 So. 2d a t 568; 
see a l s o Buckeye  
Check C a s h i n g , I n c . v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 
a t 445-46, 
7 
1100844 
126 S. C t . 1204 ('Prima P a i n t and S o u t h l a n d 
[Corp.  
v. 
K e a t i n g , 
465 U.S. 1 (1984)] ... 
e s t a b l i s h [ e d ] 
t h r e e 
p r o p o s i t i o n s . 
F i r s t , 
as 
a 
m a t t e r 
o f 
s u b s t a n t i v e 
f e d e r a l a r b i t r a t i o n law, an a r b i t r a t i o n 
p r o v i s i o n i s s e v e r a b l e 
from t h e remainder o f t h e 
c o n t r a c t . 
Second, u n l e s s 
t h e c h a l l e n g e 
i s t o t h e 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e 
i t s e l f , 
t h e 
i s s u e 
o f t h e 
c o n t r a c t ' s v a l i d i t y i s c o n s i d e r e d by the a r b i t r a t o r 
i n t h e f i r s t 
i n s t a n c e . 
T h i r d , t h i s a r b i t r a t i o n law 
a p p l i e s i n s t a t e as w e l l as f e d e r a l c o u r t s . ' ) . We 
c o n c l u d e d Paragon by s t a t i n g t h a t 'the a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e 
i s e n f o r c e a b l e 
even i f t h e c o n t r a c t as a 
whole i s l a t e r found t o be v o i d . ' Paragon, 987 So. 
2d a t 568-69. 
"The 
case b e f o r e 
us i s c l o s e l y analogous t o 
Paragon. Johnson emphasizes t h a t i n t h i s case 
'there 
i s no r e l e v a n t d e t e r m i n a t i o n 
t o be made as t o t h e 
v a l i d i t y 
o f t h e MegaSweeps 
c o n t r a c t s 
under 
§ 
8-1-150(a) 
t h a t 
has 
n o t 
a l r e a d y 
been 
f i n a l l y 
e s t a b l i s h e d as a m a t t e r o f Alabama law i n 
B a r b e r [v.  
J e f f e r s o n County R a c i n g A s s ' n , I n c . , 
960 So. 2d 599 
( A l a . 
2 0 0 6 ) ] . ' Johnson's b r i e f a t 19. She f u r t h e r 
contends t h a t 
" ' [ t h i s ] 
C o u r t 
examined 
the MegaSweeps  
i t s e l f and d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , as a m a t t e r o f 
Alabama law, the MegaSweeps 
i t s e l f 
was 
i l l e g a l 
g a m b l i n g and, more s p e c i f i c a l l y , 
t h a t i t i n v o l v e d g a m b l i n g 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n . 
And 
under § 8-1-150(a), t h e e x i s t e n c e o f 
g a m b l i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s 
t h e o n l y i s s u e 
the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f whether the 
MegaSweep 
c o n t r a c t s were v o i d ab 
i n i t i o . ' 
i n 
"Johnson's b r i e f a t 19 (emphasis i n t h e o r i g i n a l ) . 
S i m i l a r l y , 
however, a t t h e time Paragon 
a s s e r t e d 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
as a d e f e n s e t o 
l i t i g a t i o n , 
i t had 
' e n t e r e d 
i n t o a consent agreement w i t h t h e Alabama 
Home 
B u i l d e r s 
L i c e n s u r e 
B o a r d 
i n which 
Paragon 
a d m i t t e d t h a t i t had engaged i n 
t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f 
B o l e s ' s 
r e s i d e n c e 
w i t h o u t 
h o l d i n g 
a 
r e q u i r e d 
8 
1100844 
l i c e n s e . ' Paragon, 987 So. 2d a t 567. Thus, the s o l e 
q u e s t i o n under § 34-14A-14 as 
t o whether 
Paragon 
c o u l d ' b r i n g or m a i n t a i n any a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e 
the 
p r o v i s i o n s 
of 
any 
c o n t r a c t 
f o r 
r e s i d e n t i a l home 
b u i l d i n g w h i c h he or she e n t e r e d 
i n t o ' was 
a l r e a d y 
answered 
-- 
Paragon 
d i d 
not 
have 
the 
' l i c e n s e 
r e q u i r e d . ' 
N e v e r t h e l e s s , 
we 
h e l d 
i n Paragon 
t h a t 
a r b i t r a t i o n was 
r e q u i r e d . A p p l y i n g our d e c i s i o n i n 
Paragon t o the f a c t s of t h i s case, we c o n c l u d e t h a t , 
l i k e 
the 
c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t 
i n Paragon, 
'the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e 
i n 
the 
[MegaSweeps] 
c o n t r a c t 
between [JCRA] and [Johnson] i s e n f o r c e a b l e , and i t 
i s 
i r r e l e v a n t 
whether 
[JCRA]'s a c t i o n s r e n d e r 
the 
c o n t r a c t as a whole v o i d . That q u e s t i o n i s f o r the 
a r b i t r a t o r t o d e c i d e , not t h i s C o u r t . ' Paragon, 
987 
So. 2d a t 568. T h e r e f o r e the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not e r r 
i n 
d e t e r m i n i n g 
t h a t 
a 
c o n t r a c t 
c a l l i n g 
f o r 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
e x i s t s . " 
Johnson I , 1 So. 3d a t 963-66 ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . 
T h i s C o u r t 
then c o n c l u d e d 
t h a t 
" [ t ] h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t d i d not 
e r r i n 
c o m p e l l i n g 
Johnson t o 
a r b i t r a t e 
her 
c l a i m s ; however, i t d i d 
exceed 
i t s d i s c r e t i o n 
when 
i t d e c l i n e d 
t o 
s t a y 
Johnson's 
a c t i o n 
p e n d i n g 
the 
outcome 
of 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
p r o c e e d i n g s . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
we 
a f f i r m 
the 
t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r i n s o f a r as i t compels Johnson t o 
a r b i t r a t e 
her 
c l a i m 
a g a i n s t JCRA but 
r e v e r s e 
i t 
i n s o f a r 
as 
i t d i s m i s s e s 
Johnson's a c t i o n , and 
we 
remand the 
case 
f o r the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
t o e n t e r 
an 
o r d e r s t a y i n g t h i s a c t i o n p e n d i n g the outcome of the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
p r o c e e d i n g s . " 
1 So. 3d a t 
970. 
I 
d i s s e n t e d 
i n p a r t 
i n Johnson 
I , 
f o r the f o l l o w i n g 
r e a s o n s : 
9 
1100844 
" I n 
§ 
8-1-150(a), 
A l a . 
Code 
1975, 
the 
L e g i s l a t u r e has c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e d the p o s i t i o n o f 
the 
S t a t e 
of Alabama on g a m b l i n g : 
' A l l c o n t r a c t s 
founded 
i n 
whole 
or 
i n 
p a r t 
on 
a 
g a m b l i n g 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n a r e v o i d . ' The language c o u l d 
h a r d l y 
be more e x p l i c i t . The s t a t u t e d e c l a r e s t h a t 
' [ a ] l l 
c o n t r a c t s , ' not j u s t some, a r e ' v o i d , ' not v o i d a b l e , 
i f t h o s e c o n t r a c t s a r e founded ' i n whole or i n p a r t 
on a g a m b l i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n . ' 
"The J e f f e r s o n County R a c i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . 
('JCRA'), 
argues 
t h a t 
when 
a 
customer 
buys 
a 
c y b e r t i m e c a r d t o engage i n the MegaSweeps a c t i v i t y , 
t h a t customer e n t e r s i n t o a c o n t r a c t w i t h JCRA. The 
back 
s i d e 
of 
the 
c a r d 
s t a t e s : 
' A l l r u l e s 
and 
r e g u l a t i o n s 
are 
a v a i l a b l e 
a t 
Quincy's 
C a s h i e r 
l o c a t i o n s , ' and 'Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s program 
i s your a c c e p t a n c e and agreement w i t h t h e s e r u l e s . ' 
R u l e 
8 of t h o s e r u l e s i s an 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e . 
However, the customer does not r e c e i v e o r see 
t h i s 
c a r d u n t i l a f t e r he has p u r c h a s e d i t 
and has t h e r e b y 
e n t e r e d i n t o t h i s a l l e g e d c o n t r a c t . 
"Even i f a c o n t r a c t i s formed between JCRA and 
the customer, and even i f t h a t c o n t r a c t does i n c l u d e 
the p o s t e d r u l e s -- i n c l u d i n g the a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e 
-- 
t h a t 
c o n t r a c t 
i s , a c c o r d i n g 
t o § 
8-1-150(a), 
' v o i d . ' I f , as JCRA i n s i s t s , the a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e 
i s 
p a r t 
o f 
t h a t 
(void) 
c o n t r a c t , 
t h e n 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e i s j u s t as v o i d as the r e s t o f 
the 
c o n t r a c t . 
As 
d i s t i n g u i s h e d 
from 
a 
v o i d a b l e 
c o n t r a c t , 
a 
v o i d 
c o n t r a c t 
i s 
the 
same 
as 
a 
n o n e x i s t e n t 
c o n t r a c t . Mason v. A c c e p t a n c e Loan Co., 
850 So. 2d 289, 295 
( A l a . 2002). JCRA i n s i s t s 
t h a t 
the a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e i n the c o n t r a c t c o n f e r s upon 
the a r b i t r a t o r the a u t h o r i t y t o d e c i d e t h i s d i s p u t e . 
But a v o i d o r n o n e x i s t e n t c o n t r a c t cannot c o n f e r any 
a u t h o r i t y upon anyone. 
"JCRA r e l i e s upon Buckeye Check C a s h i n g , I n c . v.  
Cardegna, 546 U.S. 
440, 126 S. C t . 1204, 163 L. Ed. 
2d 
1038 
(2006), 
f o r 
the 
p r o p o s i t i o n 
t h a t 
an 
10 
1100844 
a r b i t r a t o r , not a c o u r t , must d e c i d e a c h a l l e n g e 
t o 
the 
v a l i d i t y 
and 
enforcement 
of 
a 
c o n t r a c t 
c o n t a i n i n g 
an 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e . 
Buckeye 
Check 
 
C a s h i n g i n v o l v e d an a l l e g e d l y i l l e g a l payday l o a n , 
but the 
i l l e g a l i t y of the l o a n , i n c l u d i n g the 
r a t e 
of 
i n t e r e s t a c t u a l l y charged, 
was 
the 
d i s p u t e d 
i s s u e . There i s no d i s p u t e 
i n t h i s case as t o 
the 
i l l e g a l i t y of the MegaSweeps scheme. Only two 
y e a r s 
ago, 
i n 
B a r b e r 
v. 
J e f f e r s o n 
County 
R a c i n g 
 
A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . , 960 
So. 2d 599 
( A l a . 2006), 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
c l e a r l y 
and 
u n a n i m o u s l y 
h e l d 
t h a t 
the 
MegaSweeps scheme c o n s t i t u t e s i l l e g a l g a m b l i n g . 
The 
i l l e g a l i t y of the MegaSweeps scheme i s t h e r e f o r e 
not 
an i s s u e on the t a b l e f o r e i t h e r an a r b i t r a t o r or a 
t r i a l c o u r t t o 
d e c i d e . 
"The 
main o p i n i o n contends t h a t , a l t h o u g h 
the 
C o u r t i n B a r b e r h e l d t h a t the MegaSweeps scheme i s 
an 
i l l e g a l g a m b l i n g o p e r a t i o n , 
i t d i d not 
a d d r e s s 
the e f f e c t of t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n upon the 
l e g a l i t y 
or 
v o i d n e s s 
of 
a MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t . 
T h i s 
i s 
a 
d i s t i n c t i o n w i t h no s i g n i f i c a n c e . The C o u r t need not 
s p e c i f i c a l l y 
d e c l a r e 
a 
g a m b l i n g 
c o n t r a c t 
v o i d , 
because the L e g i s l a t u r e has a l r e a d y done so. 
S e c t i o n 
8-1-150(a) i s c l e a r : ' A l l 
c o n t r a c t s founded i n whole 
or i n p a r t on 
a g a m b l i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n are 
v o i d . ' 
The 
l o g i c i s s i m p l e and u n m i s t a k a b l e : A l l g a m b l i n g 
c o n t r a c t s 
are 
v o i d ; 
MegaSweeps 
c o n t r a c t s 
are 
g a m b l i n g c o n t r a c t s ; t h e r e f o r e , MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t s 
are v o i d . 
"JCRA contends 
t h a t even 
i f the 
c o n t r a c t 
t o 
p u r c h a s e a MegaSweeps c a r d i s a v o i d c o n t r a c t , 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e i s n o n e t h e l e s s s e v e r a b l e from the 
r e s t of the c o n t r a c t . JCRA's p o s i t i o n i s i n t e r n a l l y 
i n c o n s i s t e n t : 
I t has 
s t r e n u o u s l y 
argued 
t h a t 
the 
p o s t e d r u l e s are p a r t of the MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t , 
but i t now wants t h i s C o u r t t o h o l d t h a t some of the 
r u l e s , but 
not 
a l l of the 
r u l e s , are p a r t 
of 
the 
c o n t r a c t . 
But 
§ 
8-1-150(a) 
i s 
e x p l i c i t 
on 
t h i s 
p o i n t . I t d e c l a r e s t h a t 
' [ a ] l l c o n t r a c t s founded i n  
whole or 
i n p a r t 
on 
a g a m b l i n g 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n 
are 
11 
1100844 
v o i d . ' 
(Emphasis 
added.) 
Had 
the 
L e g i s l a t u r e 
i n t e n d e d t h a t some p r o v i s i o n s of t h o s e c o n t r a c t s 
not 
be v o i d , i t c o u l d have s a i d so i n c l e a r terms, 
but 
i t s language i s a l l - e n c o m p a s s i n g and 
u n m i s t a k a b l e . 
And 
s u b s e c t i o n 
(a) 
c o n t i n u e s : 
"'Any 
p e r s o n 
who 
has 
p a i d 
any money 
or 
d e l i v e r e d any t h i n g of v a l u e 
l o s t upon 
any 
game 
or 
wager 
may 
r e c o v e r 
such money, 
t h i n g , or i t s v a l u e by an a c t i o n commenced 
w i t h i n 
s i x months from the 
time of 
such 
payment or d e l i v e r y . ' 
"§ 8-1-150(a) (emphasis added). The 
L e g i s l a t u r e 
has 
c l e a r l y 
p r o v i d e d 
t h a t 
the 
customer's remedy 
f o r 
l o s s e s i n an 
i l l e g a l g a m b l i n g a c t i v i t y i s an 
a c t i o n 
i n c o u r t , not a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i d e d by a c l a u s e i n a 
c o n t r a c t t h a t i s v o i d ab 
i n i t i o . 
" N e v e r t h e l e s s , 
the main o p i n i o n i n s i s t s t h a t the 
U n i t e d 
S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t n o t e d i n Buckeye Check  
C a s h i n g 
t h a t 
' u n l e s s 
the 
c h a l l e n g e 
i s 
t o 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e 
i t s e l f , 
the 
i s s u e 
of 
the 
c o n t r a c t ' s v a l i d i t y i s c o n s i d e r e d 
by the 
a r b i t r a t o r 
i n the 
f i r s t i n s t a n c e . ' 
546 
U.S. 
a t 445-46, 126 
S. 
C t . 
1204. 
However, Buckeye Check C a s h i n g d i d 
not 
e x t e n d t o a 
f a c t 
s i t u a t i o n 
l i k e 
the 
one 
h e r e . 
In 
d e t e r m i n i n g 
what 
k i n d s 
of 
c o n t r a c t s 
must 
be 
s u b m i t t e d t o a r b i t r a t i o n , 
the Supreme C o u r t 
s t a t e d 
t h a t 
' [ t ] h e r e 
can 
be 
no doubt t h a t 
" c o n t r a c t " 
as 
used t h i s 
l a s t time 
[ r e f e r r i n g t o i t s use 
i n Prima  
P a i n t Corp. v. 
F l o o d 
& C o n k l i n Mfg. 
Co., 
388 
U.S. 
395, 
412-13 
(1967),] must 
i n c l u d e 
c o n t r a c t s 
t h a t 
l a t e r prove t o be v o i d . ' Buckeye Check C a s h i n g , 
546 
U.S. 
a t 
448, 
126 
S. 
Ct. 
1204. 
In 
t h i s 
case, 
the 
MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t has a l r e a d y been proven v o i d by 
the l e g i s l a t i v e d e c l a r a t i o n f o l l o w e d by the 
j u d i c i a l 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n . 
I t h e r e f o r e 
b e l i e v e 
t h a t 
t h i s 
case 
can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from Buckeye Check C a s h i n g . 
" F i n a l l y , 
I 
note 
t h a t 
the 
p o s t e d 
Quincy's 
MegaSweeps 
O f f i c i a l 
Sweepstakes 
R u l e s 
d e c l a r e 
12 
1100844 
t h e m s e l v e s t o be 
' [ v ] o i d where p r o h i b i t e d by 
law.' 
T h i s 
d e c l a r a t i o n i s found a t the b e g i n n i n g 
of 
the 
r u l e s 
i n P a r a g r a p h 1 and 
appears t o a p p l y 
t o 
the 
e n t i r e 
r u l e s . 
P a r a g r a p h 
2 
p r o v i d e s 
t h a t 
' [ t ] h e 
Sweepstakes 
i s s u b j e c t 
t o 
a l l f e d e r a l , s t a t e 
and 
l o c a l 
laws 
and 
r e g u l a t i o n s , 
i n c l u d i n g 
w i t h o u t 
l i m i t a t i o n 
A l a . Code § 8-19D-1 e t 
seq. 
and 
A l a . 
A t t y . 
Gen. 
Ops. 
1999-28 and 
2005-173.' The 
r u l e s 
c o n t a i n no s e v e r a b i l i t y c l a u s e or any o t h e r language 
t h a t 
w o u l d 
s u g g e s t 
t h a t 
t h e 
v o i d - w h e r e - p r o h i b i t e d - b y - l a w 
p r o v i s i o n 
a p p l i e s 
t o 
a n y t h i n g 
l e s s than the e n t i r e s e t of r u l e s . I f , as 
JCRA i n s i s t s , 
the 
r u l e s are p a r t of the 
c o n t r a c t , 
t h e n 
by 
o p e r a t i o n 
of 
the 
r u l e s 
t h e m s e l v e s , 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e i s v o i d . 
"Because 
I 
b e l i e v e 
t h a t 
a 
v o i d 
and 
i l l e g a l 
c o n t r a c t cannot c o n f e r a u t h o r i t y upon an a r b i t r a t o r , 
and because I b e l i e v e t h a t the f a c t s of t h i s case -¬
a 
' c o n t r a c t ' 
c o n s i s t i n g 
of 
a 
c a r d 
the 
customer 
r e c e i v e s o n l y a f t e r p a y i n g f o r i t , a c o n t r a c t 
t h a t 
a l l e g e d l y i n c o r p o r a t e s r u l e s t h a t d e c l a r e t h e m s e l v e s 
' [ v ] o i d where p r o h i b i t e d by law,' and a s t a t u t e t h a t 
not 
o n l y 
d e c l a r e s 
such 
c o n t r a c t s 
v o i d 
but 
a l s o 
p r o v i d e s 
t h a t an a c t i o n i n c o u r t i s the 
customer's 
remedy -- p r e s e n t a s i t u a t i o n not 
c o n t e m p l a t e d i n 
Buckeye Check C a s h i n g , I d i s s e n t as t o t h a t 
h o l d i n g 
of the 
m a j o r i t y . " 
Johnson I , 1 So. 
3d a t 970-72 ( P a r k e r , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . 
Upon remand, Johnson's c l a i m a g a i n s t JCRA was 
s u b m i t t e d 
t o 
a r b i t r a t i o n b e f o r e 
a 
p a n e l 
of 
American 
A r b i t r a t i o n 
A s s o c i a t i o n a r b i t r a t o r s ("the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
p a n e l " ) p u r s u a n t t o 
the a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement. 
F o l l o w i n g the a r b i t r a t i o n p a n e l ' s 
e n t r y 
of a 
f i n a l award, Johnson a p p e a l e d the award t o 
the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t . 
The 
c i r c u i t c o u r t then e n t e r e d the a r b i t r a t i o n 
13 
1100844 
p a n e l ' s f i n a l award as t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n a l judgment on 
Johnson's 
c l a i m . 
P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . 
P., and R u l e 7 1 B ( f ) , 
A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P.,
1 Johnson 
f i l e d a motion t o a l t e r , amend, or 
v a c a t e the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment. 
On March 8, 2011, t h e 
c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d Johnson's postjudgment m o t i o n . 
Johnson 
f i l e d a t i m e l y a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t . 
For 
t h e same reasons e x p r e s s e d i n my d i s s e n t i n Johnson 
I , I d i s s e n t from t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m the c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s 
judgment 
e n t e r i n g 
as 
i t s f i n a l 
judgment 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n p a n e l ' s f i n a l award. 
I m a i n t a i n my p o s i t i o n t h a t 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n agreement c o n t a i n e d i n 
t h e 
MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t 
i s 
v o i d p u r s u a n t t o § § 8-1-150(a), A l a . Code 1975. 
See 
1 R u l e 71B(f) 
s t a t e s : 
"The c l e r k o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t p r o m p t l y s h a l l e n t e r 
the 
[ a r b i t r a t i o n ] award as t h e f i n a l judgment o f t h e 
c o u r t . 
T h e r e a f t e r , as a 
c o n d i t i o n 
p r e c e d e n t 
t o 
f u r t h e r r e v i e w by any a p p e l l a t e 
c o u r t , any p a r t y 
opposed t o the award may 
f i l e , i n accordance 
w i t h 
R u l e 
59, a m o t i o n 
t o s e t a s i d e or v a c a t e t h e 
judgment based upon one or more o f t h e 
grounds 
s p e c i f i e d i n A l a . Code 1975, § 6-6-14, o r o t h e r 
a p p l i c a b l e law. The c o u r t s h a l l not g r a n t any such 
motion u n t i l a r e a s o n a b l e time a f t e r a l l p a r t i e s a r e 
s e r v e d p u r s u a n t t o p a r a g r a p h (e) o f t h i s r u l e . The 
d i s p o s i t i o n o f any such motion i s s u b j e c t t o 
c i v i l 
and 
a p p e l l a t e 
r u l e s 
a p p l i c a b l e 
t o 
o r d e r s 
and 
judgments i n c i v i l 
a c t i o n s . " 
14 
1100844 
Joshua R. Welsh, Comment, 
Has E x p a n s i o n 
o f t h e 
F e d e r a l 
A r b i t r a t i o n A c t Gone Too F a r ? : E n f o r c i n g A r b i t r a t i o n 
C l a u s e s 
i n V o i d Ab I n i t i o C o n t r a c t s , 86 Marq. L. Rev. 581, 610 
(2002). 
15