Court Opinion

ID: 9740398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:34:28.203214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:18.092829
License: Public Domain

CRONE, Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in result in part.
I fully concur with respect to issue I. As for issue II, I agree with the majority's conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the City's motion for a preliminary injunction, but I respectfully disagree with its rationale in several respects.
First, I do not believe that we should consider the City's ability to issue bonds in assessing the nature and extent of its alleged damages and the availability of alternate remedies. Decisions regarding how and where municipal funds are raised and allocated are both incredibly complicated and inherently within the province of the legislative and executive branches. Only rarely should the judiciary intervene in such matters, and I believe that we should refrain from serving as the City's de facto budget director in this case.
Second, I do not believe that the City's alleged damages are merely economic. The City notes that the loss of Majestic Star's payments "prevents the City from paying overtime for police officers, firefighters, and garbage pick-up[,]" as well as impedes its payment of medical insurance claims and police and fire pension obligations. Appellant's Br. at 9. Likewise, the loss of Majestic Star's payments will negatively affect the City's ability to fund various infrastructure and social service projects. The City points out that if it
ultimately prevails in this action, its citizens cannot be made whole by, for example, having twice the additional security at future events. Nor will a victim of a crime during any period of reduced overtime have a claim that can be satisfied by Majestic Star. A municipality simply cannot be compensated for lost *1085revenue in the same manner that a for profit corporation like Majestic Star can be.
Id. at 15.
Third, in light of its negative impacts on the welfare of the City's residents, I believe that Majestic Star's withholding of its payments to the City is clearly against the public interest.
That being said, I find it significant that the 1996 Majestic Development Agreement contains an arbitration clause, which reads in pertinent part as follows:
In the event that [sic] any controversy or claim, except those pertaining to any default set forth in Section 5.01 [not applicable herel, the controversy or claim shall be settled by binding arbitration at Indianapolis, Indiana, in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment on the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
Appellant's App. at 123. The record indicates that the arbitration clause has not been affected by any subsequent amendment to the agreement. Thus, not only does the City have an alternate remedy, but it also specifically agreed to avail itself of that remedy in the event of a controversy with Majestic Star. For that reason, I conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the City's request for a preliminary injunction. Therefore, I respectfully concur in result as to this issue.