Flynt
Flynt v. Harris
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 LARRY C. FLYNT; HAIG No. 2:16-cv-02831-JAM-EFB
KELEGIAN, SR.; HAIG T.
KELEGIAN, JR., Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
v. MOTION TO DISMISS STEPHANIE K. SHIMAZU, in her official capacity as the Director of the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Gambling Control, et al., Defendants. 18 Larry Flynt, Haig Kelegian, Sr., and Haig Kelegian Jr. own card clubs in California. Flynt and the Kelegians want to substantially invest in out-of-state casinos, but California law prohibits them from owning more than a one-percent interest in facilities that host casino-style gambling. In 2016, Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of this prohibition, arguing it violates the Due Process Clause and the dormant commerce doctrine. Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs have since abandoned their due process claim. See Flynt v. Shimazu, 940 F.3d 457, 460 n.2 (9th Cir. 2019) …