Court Opinion

ID: 9754142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:45:32.725594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:49.643711
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge LEAVITT.
I concur in the result. I write separately because summary judgment cannot be granted except where the facts material to the judgment are not in dispute. Here, the statutory standard requiring a licensee to be financially fit and suitable is one that requires factual findings and, thus, is beyond the reach of summary judgment.
Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners (PEDP) asserted that it was financially fit and suitable to hold a license to build a Category 2 casino. The Bureau of Investigation alleged that it was not and sought to revoke PEDP’s license on that ground. PEDP admitted that its proposal was not the same as when it was first granted a license, but this admission did not mean that PEDP was no longer financially fit or suitable to hold a license. The dispute about PEDP’s financial fitness and suitability required the Gaming Control Board (Board) to make findings of fact and, thus, a revocation on this ground could not be made on summary judgment.
On the other hand, the Board had other grounds to revoke PEDP’s license, ie., failure to comply with the Board’s orders of September 1, 2009, and March 3, 2010.1 The September 1, 2009 order required PEDP to do the following:
5. Within 3 months ... submit ... all architectural renderings, artist renderings, conceptual proposals, engineering opinions, any and all other documents relating to constmction of a facility, substantially similar to that approved, by the Board on December 20, 2006. The submissions must provide for a minimum of 1,500 slot machines available for play, on or before May 29, 2011....
6. Within 3 months ... submit ... a timeline for commencement and completion of all phases of development regarding its facility with a minimum of 1,500 slot machines available for play, on or before May 29,2011....
See Reproduced Record at 1338a (emphasis added). PEDP’s failure to meet these conditions is a fact not in dispute. Nor is it disputed that the final proposal by PEDP was not substantially similar to that which was approved by the Board on December 20, 2006. Accordingly, summary judgment on PEDP’s undisputed failure to *281comply with the Board’s orders was appropriate.
I would affirm the Board’s grant of summary judgment to revoke PEDP’s license for one reason: its undisputed failure to comply with the Board’s orders of September 1, 2009, and March 3, 2010.
Judge BROBSON joins in this concurring opinion.