Opinion ID: 852257
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does FEC Have Standing?

Text: FEC challenges the trial court's ruling that it lacked standing to challenge the statutory section at issue. (Appellant's Br. at 1, 14-17.) It urges that the court mistakenly permitted the City to re-litigate standing arguments earlier resolved adverse to the City in a different division of the Marion Superior Court, where Judge Cale Bradford allowed FEC to substitute as a party under Ind. Trial Rule 25 for the two non-profits that had been receiving funds. (Appellant's App. at 14-15.) Thus, FEC submits, the trial court here usurped the exclusive jurisdiction of its sister Marion Superior Court, improperly engaging in `appellate review' of a coordinate tribunal's decision. (Appellant's Br. at 15.) It also contends that the court overlooked undisputed evidence of the board-structure changes implemented in forming the merged FEC entity. In any event, the FEC says it has standing to challenge the statute. The City, by contrast, argues that the litigation earlier before Judge Bradford was largely a dispute over whether the local corporations possessed third-party beneficiary rights that might limit the ability of the actual parties to the local development agreement. It says the procedural decision rendered by Judge Bradford was not a final judgment entitled to any preclusive effect in other cases. (City's Br. at 17-18.) The City's larger point about FEC's status is one of considerable force. The entity before us today bears scant resemblance in structure to the two non-profit foundations that had been receiving funds in accordance with the license and the local development agreement between the City and the riverboat operator. Whether FEC is entitled to receive funds under the gaming license, as Twin City and ECCDF did, is first and foremost a matter of administrative law for the Indiana Gaming Commission to decide. We deem that to be an open question. By contrast, whether FEC has a sufficient interest to be a party in the litigation before us is a judicial question to be resolved by reference to the law of standing. The judicial doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper party to invoke the court's power. State ex rel. Cittadine v. Indiana Dept. of Transp., 790 N.E.2d 978 (Ind. 2003). Courts seek to assure that litigation will be actively and vigorously contested. Schloss v. City of Indianapolis, 553 N.E.2d 1204 (Ind.1990). It is generally insufficient that a plaintiff merely has a general interest common to all members of the public. Terre Haute Gas Corp. v. Johnson, 221 Ind. 499, 45 N.E.2d 484 (1942). Standing requires that a party have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit and must show that he or she has sustained or was in immediate danger of sustaining, some direct injury as a result of the conduct at issue. Higgins v. Hale, 476 N.E.2d 95, 101 (Ind.1985). At least for now, FEC is receiving substantial revenue from the casino license and the original local development agreements. The fact that Section 302 has the potential to set in motion events under which the Commission might eliminate that flow of money is sufficient to find standing under these circumstances.