Def Resp Brief 091809

III

NEMETH

200 Talon Centre

Dm·c

telephone:

(313) 567-5921

BURWELL

PC

Suite 200

fac,imjlc:

(.1

L)l

5675928

Attorneys

&

Counselors

Detroit,

~8207

-.1199

email:internet:

, ;',h:-;lcrs

(;;-

L~bor

L;nv

~_imh

G,

Burwell

P.tlncl,l

N~'Jnl'lh1'

• :'jer:1ber

ur

J:]inois Bar

;\nnc

WiJi:lk

(lin-orel L

llatTU11unJ

.,

l'Ilcmbcr

"fW

Virginia

BarJ,'rcdcric E,

Champmlb,

j[

;\fonica

i'.l.

;\foore

Tj-:i\)Ol,lS

SChLllnlTI

.\.

DunphyDeborah

Brouwer

l"urtoll,Jr

W.

Bonnette

D. Ko\'al

>f* 

ilL

CallI

LouIS

B,

Eblc 

September 18, 2009

VIA HAND-DELIVERY

Clerk

of

the CourtHon. Michael

F.

SapalaTwo Woodward Ave.,

Rm.

1707Coleman

A

Young Municipal BuildingDetroit, MI 48226

RE: Parise v. Detroit

Entertainment,

LLC

Case No. 09-007370-CZ

Dear Mr. Cusumano:Enclosed please find the following documents regarding the above mentioned maiter that wasfiled with the court today:

1. 

Defendant's Response

BriefIn

Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion For SummaryDisposition; and2. Proof

of

Service.Very Truly Yours,

~~

eborah Brouwer

DB/sh

Enclosurescc: 

Frank

A.

Cusumano, Esq.

(via

hand-delivery)

Working

with

Employers

to

Prewllt,

Resolve,

and

Litigate

Empl~)!ment

Di~putes

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN

THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNEIT ALO

M.

PARISE,Plaintiff,Case No. 09-007370-CZ-vs-Hon. Michae!

F.

SapalaDETROIT ENTERTAINMENT,

L.L.c.,

Defendant.Frank

A.

Cusumano (P42781)Attorney for Plaintiff4000 Crooks Rd., Ste. 100ARoyal Oak, MI 48073(248) 822-8760Patricia Nemeth (P3 7004) Deborah Brouwer (P34872) Louis

B.

Eble (P59368) Nemeth Burwell P.C. Attorney for Defendant 200 Talon Centre Dr., Ste. 200 Detroit, MI 48207 (313) 567-5921

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

I.

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff, after lawfully gambling at MotorCity Casino (a fully licensed casino) for nineyears, now wants his money back. In this suit, he claims that MotorCity Casino owes him the$673,854.00he allegedly wagered and lost. Plaintiff's claim is premised on MCL

§

600.2939(the "Prior Act"), a statute first enacted 150 years before the legalization

of

nontribal gaming atthe three Detroit casinos, which permits recovery by those who have lost money from illegalgaming activities. Plaintiff's argument,

if

adopted by the Michigan courts, would create agaping loophole under which all risk would

be

removed for bettors gambling in the Detroitcasinos, thereby ensuring that all such casino gaming would grind

to

a screeching halt. Acasino not allowed to keep its winnings obviously cannot survive.A ruling in Plaintiff's favor would completely thwart the will

of

the people

of

Michigan, who specifically voted in 1996 to allow casino gaming in the City

of

Detroitpursuant

to

an initiated law known as Proposal Such a ruling would also thwart the will

of

the Legislature, which foresaw the obvious potential for conflict between, on the one hand, theauthorization

of

legalized gambling in Detroit, and, on the other hand, the existence

of

ascheme

of

pre-existing laws, which were enacted when gambling was uniformly illegalthroughout the State. In Proposal E as amended, the Legislature expressly provided that

"[a]nyother law that is inconsistent with this act does not apply

to

casino gaming as provided forby this act."

See

MeL

§

432.203(3). The law upon which Plaintiff relies allows bettors

to

sueto recover any losses incurred in illegal gaming and clearly is inconsistent with the legal casinogaming in Detroit authorized by Proposal

E,

as amended.2 