Court Opinion

ID: 9538550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:37:40.125101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:58.559612
License: Public Domain

Young, J.,
dissenting:
Respectfully, I dissent. I would hold that there is a private cause of action under NRS Chapter 463.
*42The majority concedes that the purpose of NRS 463.440(1)(a) and NRS 463.460 is to benefit gaming entities. Clearly, NRS 463.440(1)(a) and NRS 463.460 create a right in favor of race books. Race books are entitled to receive all information concerning racing which is being disseminated in Nevada. NRS 463.440(1)(a). The information is to be furnished to any race book which applies for it, and the disseminator may not discriminate against any applicant. NRS 463.460. In order to give NRS 463.460 meaning, a private cause of action must be afforded to those gaming entities which are denied the rights granted to them by statute.
The majority concedes that gaming entities are the primary beneficiaries of NRS 463.440(1)(a) and NRS 463.460, but goes on to say that nothing in those statutes provides gaming entities with a private cause of action. Where a statute does not expressly create or deny a private cause of action, the legislative history will typically be ambiguous or silent on the issue. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 694 (1978). “Therefore, in situations such as the present one ‘in which it is clear that [the statute] has granted a class of persons certain rights, it is not necessary to show an intention to create a private cause of action Id. at 694 (quoting Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 82 (1975)) (emphasis in original.) No private remedy should be implied if it is contrary to the underlying purpose of the legislation. Cannon, 441 U.S. at 703. However, when a private cause of action is helpful to accomplish the statutory purpose, the court should be receptive to allowing the remedy. Id. Affording LeRoy’s a private cause of action furthers the legislative intent to protect gaming entities from denial of racing information being disseminated in the State of Nevada.
The majority limits LeRoy’s remedy to enforcement of the statute through the Nevada Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Gaming Commission. Preclusion of a private cause of action renders a hollow victory to LeRoy’s, which was denied the rights afforded it by statute but which is not entitled to damages for that denial. Sports Form is merely slapped on the wrist for discriminating against LeRoy’s in violation of NRS 463.460. If a private cause of action were recognized, it would discourage Sports Form or others from discrimination in the future.
I therefore dissent.