Flynt
Flynt v. Harris
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LARRY C. FLYNT; HAIG No. 2:16-cv-02831-JAM-JDP
KELEGIAN, SR.; HAIG T.
KELEGIAN, JR., Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
v. MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
STEPHANIE K. SHIMAZU, in her official capacity as the Director of the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Gambling Control, et al., Defendants. 19 Larry Flynt, Haig Kelegian, Sr., and Haig Kelegian Jr. (“Plaintiffs”) own cardrooms in California. Plaintiffs want to substantially invest in out-of-state casinos, but California law prohibits them from owning more than a 1% interest in facilities that host casino-style gambling. They challenge the constitutionality of this prohibition, arguing it violates the dormant commerce doctrine. See generally Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”), ECF NO. 57. On August 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their SAC. Id. In response, Defendants filed another motion to dismiss.1 …