Tunica Web Advertising, Inc. v. Barden Mississippi Gaming, LLC, No. 2:03CV234-SA-JAD, 2008 WL 3539731 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 11, 2008)

Motions, Pleadings and Filings

United States District Court,
N.D. Mississippi,
Delta Division.
TUNICA WEB ADVERTISING, INC., Plaintiff
v.
BARDEN MISSISSIPPI GAMING, LLC (d/b/a "Fitzgerald's Casino and Hotel"),
Defendant.
No. 2:03CV234-SA-JAD.

Aug. 11, 2008.
 J. Brad Pigott, Carlton W. Reeves, Pigott Reeves Johnson & Minor, PA, James Douglas Minor, Jr., Bradley Arant Rose & White, LLP-Jackson, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff.

 Robert F. Stacy, Jr., Kenneth A. Rutherford, Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, Oxford, MS, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
 
 SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge.

 *1 This matter comes before the Court on Barden Mississippi Gaming, LLC's (d/b/a "Fitzgerald's Casino and Hotel") ("Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment filed on October 25, 2007. The Court finds that the Motion shall be DENIED. Specifically, the Court finds as follows:

BACKGROUND
 In November 1999, Cherry Graziosi purchased the domain names "tunicamiss.com" and "tunicamississippi.com" for approximately $140.00 from a domain name registrar. Subsequently, Plaintiff leased the names to Circus Circus Mississippi, Inc., (d/b/a Gold Strike Casino Resort) ("Gold Strike") [FN1]. Thus, if an internet user typed in "tunicamiss.com" or "tunicamississippi.com" in the internet browser bar, he would be automatically re-directed to "www.goldstrikemississippi.com". Gold Strike entered into a one-year lease at a rate of $2,000 per month, and when the lease expired, Gold Strike continued leasing it on a month-to-month basis for $5,000 a month.

FN1. Gold Strike was initially named as a defendant but subsequently was dismissed pursuant to settlement.

 In 2000, Graziosi formed Tunica Web Advertising, Inc. ("TWA") and purchased the domain name "tunica.com" for approximately $20,000. Thereafter, TWA leased "tunica.com" to Gold Strike for ninety days at a price of $3,000 per month. Gold Strike continued to lease "tunica.com" for the next three months until April 30, 2001.

 The Tunica County Tourism Commission ("TCTC") then filed suit against Graziosi claiming that she was a "cyber squatter"--one who purchases a domain name with the purpose of profiting from another entity's trademark. As part of the settlement of the lawsuit, Graziosi agreed to transfer to TCTC all of her rights to "tunicamiss.com" and "tunicamississippi.com." TCTC agreed to allow Graziosi to retain all rights to "tunica.com."

 In May 2001, TWA appeared before the Tourism Commission and proposed that if the casinos [FN2] paid TWA $2500.00 per month per casino, anyone who typed in the internet address "tunica.com" would be redirected to the Tourism Commission's pre-existing website--featuring information on all eight casinos. Further, the casinos would have right of first refusal to purchase "tunica.com."

FN2. Barden Mississippi Gaming, LLC (d/b/a "Fitzgerald's Casino and Hotel"); BL Development Corp. (d/b/a "Grand Casino Tunica"); Robinson Property Group, Ltd Partnership (d/b/a "Horseshoe Casino & Hotel"); Tunica Partners II LP (d/b/a "Harrah's Tunica Mardis Gras Casino"); Bally's Olympia Limited Partnership (d/b/a "Bally's Saloon & Gambling Hall"); HWCC-Tunica, Inc. (d/b/a "Hollywood Casino Tunica"); Boyd Tunica, Inc. (d/b/a "Sam's Town Hotel & Gambling"); and Sheraton Tunica Corporation (d/b/a "Sheraton Casino & Hotel").

 Karen Sock, a TCTC member and the general manager of the Grand Casino, referred the matter to the Tunica Casino Operators Association ("TCOA"), a trade association created by the Tunica casinos. TWA's joint proposal was rejected by the casinos, and they voted not to utilize the "tunica.com" domain name. Clyde Callicott, then Marketing Director for Gold Strike, was in attendance at the meeting. According to the Plaintiff, following the meeting, Callicott contacted the Plaintiff and informed her that Dominic Mezzetta (the general manager of Fitzgerald's) told the casinos to refrain from doing any business on any terms with the Plaintiff, thus, creating a "gentleman's agreement" against TWA.

 A week after the May 30, 2001, meeting, Grazioso emailed Callicott to determine the outcome of the meeting. Callicott emailed the following in response: 
*2 Cherry, 
I was informed by my VP/GM (based on that discussion held at the TCOA meeting) to terminate the business relationship we have created with the "tunica.com" site. I wish I could do more but my hands have been officially tied by the TCOA on this issue. 
I'm sorry, 
Clyde 
Furthermore, Grazioso also says that Callicott told her that Robert McQueen (general manager at Horseshoe Casino) said, "I am not interested in doing business with her. Let's all agree not to do business with her. And that way the site would be worthless." Weeks after the meeting, Graziosi states that she contacted Ellen Duffin, a marketing executive at Grand Casino, and advised her that Graziosi was aware of the "gentlemen's agreement" to which Duffin allegedly responded, "I guess the feeling is, if nobody does business with you, your site will be worthless."

 After the May 30, 2001, meeting, TWA changed its business model by creating a website at "tunica.com" in hopes that it would generate revenue through casino advertising and/or commissions from online hotel bookings. TWA subsequently hired Memphis radio personality Rudi Schiffer to market "tunica.com" to the casinos. Additionally, TWA offered Clyde Callicott, who had left Gold Strike to become the marketing director at the Grand Casino, a portion of the profits for the sale of advertising on the "tunica.com." Callicott was a silent partner, and it is undisputed that the casinos had no knowledge of his involvement in the project. Schiffer approached a number of the casinos individually in attempt to market the website. All of the casinos declined to utilize the site.

 However, Gold Strike entered into a contract with TWA in October 2001 wherein they granted the exclusive right to book bus tours to Gold Strike with specified terms on a commission basis to TWA. It is undisputed that TWA never sent Gold Strike a single bus tour referral.

 Plaintiff states that the boycott was reaffirmed at a November 2002 TCOA meeting. On November 19, 2002, Callicott, then the marketing director for the Sheraton Casino and Bally's, emailed Graziosi and informed her that he understood that the TCOA had recently held a meeting at which the casinos voted to stay away from "tunica.com". Specifically, the email read, 
The meeting went well ... however it's [sic] looks like the Tunica casino (the TCOA) is turning their backs on Rudi thanks to a special meeting held last week backed by Dominic from Fitzgeralds. They apparently held a meeting last Tuesday to discuss this ... in a similar fashion as they did when you where [sic] involved. They voted to stray [sic] away from the site so it could evently [sic] be sold and bought at a later date by them. Dominic asked for a majority vote from each property to see if they would ban advertising on this site ... his arguement [sic] is that (although valuable) it is not for one individual to profit from. He beleaves [sic] that the state should own the site. With such a strong opponnent [sic], no property will cross that line individual [sic] to advertise with this project.

 *3 Rudi Schiffer emailed TWA on November 28, 2002, and reported: 
Cherry, 
have not made any headway with sales efforts .... seemed we missed the budget cycle by casinos and nobody wants to spend on another site and they seem to be pretty satisfied with their own websites. that ends my effort and sorry we couldn't get it together, I think it had great promise but I couldn't convince the folks who had the budgets to expand them for tunica.com

 Graziosi and TWA filed this action on June 27, 2003, asserting state and federal antitrust claims against the casinos, the TCTC, and the TCOA. On November 24, 2004, this Court dismissed TCTC, holding that TCTC was immune from antitrust liability. Subsequently, the TCOA and Gold Strike were both dismissed from the suit. On December 19, 2005, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants on TWA's antitrust claims. Tunica Web Adver., Inc., v. Barden Miss. Gaming, LLC, 2005 WL 3488499 (N.D.Miss. Dec.19, 2005). This Court also dismissed Cherry Graziosi individually for lack of standing. This Court held that: (1) the casinos' alleged conduct could not amount to a per se violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act; (2) any concerted refusal to deal with TWA arising from the May 30, 2001, TCOA meeting was not an unreasonable agreement in restraint of trade because it was a joint response to a joint proposal and because TWA did not produce sufficient evidence to show any anticompetitive effect; (3) TWA did not show that the casinos' post-May 30, 2001, refusals to deal with TWA and "tunica.com" were the result of concerted action, in part because TWA did not provide the details of any of its post-May 30, 2001, proposals to the casinos; and (4) antitrust laws were not created to protect TWA, who was merely a customer of the casinos and not a competitor.

 On September 5, 2007, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the cause for further proceedings. Tunica Web Adver. v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n, Inc., 496 F.3d 403 (5th Cir.2007). Specifically, the Court held (1) the casinos' initial decision to jointly reject the jointly submitted proposal was not an unreasonable agreement in restraint of trade; (2) Callicott's statements (allegedly later confirmed by Duffin) that the casinos had a "gentlemen's agreement" to not deal with TWA, if credited, created a genuine issue of material fact; (3) the casinos actions after the May 30, 2001, TCOA meeting, if credited, create a genuine issue of fact as to whether the casinos engaged in concerted action; (4) the district court erred in finding that the per se rule only applies in situations where one of the conspirators is a direct competitor of the victim; and (5) to determine whether the per se rule applies, the district court should have analyzed the following factors: (a) whether the casinos hold a dominant position in the relevant market; (b) whether the casinos control access to an element necessary to enable TWA to compete; and (c) whether there exist plausible arguments concerning pro-competitive effects. Id. at 410-15; citing Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pac. Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U.S. 284, 290, 105 S.Ct. 2613, 86 L.Ed.2d 202 (1985).

 *4 Subsequently, the casinos filed a Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on October 25, 2007. On June 3, 2008, Plaintiff settled with all of the casinos except for Barden Mississippi Gaming, LLC (d/b/a "Fitzgerald's Casino and Hotel.") The October 25, 2007, Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment remains before this court.

STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
 To be entitled to summary judgment, a party must "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The movant has the initial burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Rule 56(c) compels the court to grant summary judgment "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. at 322, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265. Before finding that no genuine issue for trial exists, the court must first be satisfied that no reasonable trier of fact could find for the non-movant. Matsushita Elec. Indus. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

 Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, states: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." To state a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, a plaintiff must show the defendant "(1) engaged in a conspiracy (2) that restrained trade (3) in a particular market." Spectators' Commc'n Network Inc. v. Colonial Country Club, 253 F.3d 215, 220 (5th Cir.2001). A requisite of any section 1 conspiracy is a showing of concerted action on the part of the defendant. See Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 761, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984). "To establish concerted action, the plaintiff must present 'evidence that reasonably tends to prove that the [defendants] had a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective.' " Tunica Web Adver., 496 F.3d at 409. (quoting Monsanto Co., 465 U.S. at 761, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775). Concerted action can be proven through direct or circumstantial evidence. Monsanto Co., 465 U.S. at 764, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775; Viazis v. Am. Ass'n of Orthodontists, 314 F.3d 758, 762 (5th Cir.2002). "Direct evidence of concerted action 'is that which explicitly refer[s] to an understanding between the alleged conspirators,' while circumstantial evidence requires additional inferences in order to support a claim of conspiracy." Tunica Web Adver., 496 F.3d at 409; (citing Viazis, 314 F.3d at 762 (citations omitted)). "In sum, a plaintiff can survive summary judgment only if it 'show[s] that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could have harmed' the plaintiff." Tunica Web Adver., 496 F.3d at 409. (quoting Viazis 314 F.3d at 762). Furthermore, "[i]f the plaintiff's theory is economically senseless, no reasonable jury could find in its favor, and summary judgment should be granted." Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services, 504 U.S. 451, 468-69, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 119 L.Ed.2d 265 (1992).

DISCUSSION
 *5 TWA must bring forth sufficient evidence of a conspiracy or concerted action on the part of the casinos in order to overcome summary judgment. See AD/SAT v. Associated Press, 181 F.3d 216, 232 (2nd Cir.1999) (an agreement must be established before the court can consider whether the agreement constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade).

 Given the joint nature of the proposal, the casinos' decision to reject the joint proposal, the Fifth Circuit has held, was not concerted action subject to section 1. Tunica Web Adver., 496 F.3d at 410. Thus, the rejection of the $2500 per casino per month proposal was not an unreasonable restraint of trade.

 The Fifth Circuit stated TWA created a genuine issue of material fact that although the casinos did not act unreasonably as to the joint proposal, during that same meeting, they may have acted in concert to prevent future business with TWA. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated: 
TWA's evidence--such as Callicott's statements and emails to Graziosi indicating the casinos had entered into a "gentlemen's agreement" to not deal with "tunica.com" and that Gold Strike had to terminate its relationship with "tunica.com" as a result of the casinos' agreement at the May 30, 2001 meeting is, if credited, direct evidence that the casinos agreed not only to reject TWA's initial proposal, but also to refuse to do business with TWA and "tunica.com" individually. 
Id.

 This Court opines, as implied by the Fifth Circuit, that TWA has created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the casinos engaged in concerted action.

 Specifically, in accordance with the Fifth Circuit, the Court is of the opinion that TWA's evidence of the casinos' actions after the May 30, 2001, TCOA meeting creates an issue of fact as to whether the casinos engaged in concerted action. See id.

 The Fifth Circuit then examined whether TWA's argument that the casinos' refusal to do business with it amounts to a horizontal boycott that is per se unlawful under section 1. Id. at 411-12. The Fifth Circuit determined that it is not required that the victim of the boycott be a competitor of the boycotting parties. Id. at 413.

 Finally, the Fifth Circuit held that this Court should have analyzed the following factors in determining whether the per se rule applies: (1) whether the casinos hold a dominant position in the relevant market; (2) whether the casinos control access to an element necessary to enable TWA to compete; and (3) whether there exist plausible arguments concerning pro-competitive effects. Id. at 410-15.

 This Court holds that TWA has created a genuine issue of material fact that (1) the casinos hold a dominant position in the relevant market; (2) the casinos control access to an element necessary to enable TWA to compete; and (3) the practices were not justified by plausible arguments that were intended to enhance overall efficiency and make markets more competitive.

CONCLUSION
 *6 TWA has presented "evidence that tends to exclude both the possibility of conduct consistent with permissible competition and possibility that the alleged conspirators acted independently." Consol. Metal Prod. v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 846 F.2d 284, 290 (5th Cir.1998). Moreover, Plaintiff's theory is not "economically senseless" and a reasonable juror could find in its favor. In sum, TWA has created fact issues; therefore, summary judgment is not warranted. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion for Renewed Summary Judgment is DENIED.

 A separate order shall issue on this day.

 So ORDERED.

 Slip Copy, 2008 WL 3539731 (N.D.Miss.), 2008-2 Trade Cases P 76,369

Motions, Pleadings and Filings (Back to top)

•  2007 WL 4724290 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Defendant Hollywood Casino's Rebuttal in Support of its Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Dec. 13, 2007)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2007 WL 4724291 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Rebuttal Brief of Defendants Barden Mississippi Gaming, LLC, Bl Development Corporation, Sheraton Tunica Corporation, Bally's Olympia Limited Partnership, Tunica Partners II, L.P., Boyd Tunica, Inc. and Robinson Property Group Limited Partnership%n1% n in Support of Their Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Dec. 13, 2007)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2007 WL 4724251 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Casino Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Nov. 23, 2007)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2007 WL 4724289 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Hollywood Casino's Separate Motion for Summary Judgment (Nov. 23, 2007)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2007 WL 4724250 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Casino Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Nov. 21, 2007)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2007 WL 4724246 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Defendants Barden Mississippi Gaming, LLC, Bl Development Corporation, Sheraton Tunica Corporation, Bally's Olympia Limited Partnership, Tunica Partners II, L.P., Boyd Tunica, Inc. and Robinson Property Group Limited Partnership's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 25, 2007)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2007 WL 4724247 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Memorandum Brief of Defendants Barden Mississippi Gaming, LLC, BL Development Corporation, Sheraton Tunica Corporation, Bally's Olympia Limited Partnership, Tunica Partners II, L.P., Boyd Tunica, Inc. and Robinson Property Group Limited Partnership i n Support of Their Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 25, 2007)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2007 WL 4724248 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Hollywood Casino's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 25, 2007)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2007 WL 4724249 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Memorandum of Authorities in Support of Hollywood Casino's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 25, 2007)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010184 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Rebuttal Brief in Support of Motion to Strike Affidavit of Alex Tajirian and Motion in Limine (Dec. 16, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010182 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Rebuttal Memorandum of Casino Defendants and the Tunica County Tourism Commission in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert, Alex Tajirian (Nov. 23, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010183 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion to Strike Affidavit of Alex Tajirian and Motion in Limine (Nov. 23, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 3490384 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Plaintiffs' Response and Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Alex Tajirian (Nov. 10, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 3878902 (Expert Report and Affidavit) Affidavit of Alex Tajirian (Nov. 7, 2005)

•  2005 WL 5739824 (Expert Report and Affidavit) Affidavit of Alex Tajirian (Nov. 7, 2005)

•  2005 WL 2914545 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine of Casino Defendants and the Tunica County Tourism Commission to Exclude Testimony of Platnttffs' Expert, Alex Tajirian (Sep. 21, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 2584407 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Reply in Support of Circus Circus Mississippi, Inc.'s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Aug. 11, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010180 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims, or in the Alternative, for Separate Trial (Jul. 26, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010181 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Rebuttal Memorandum of the Casino Defendants, Including the Tunica Casino Operators Association, Inc., in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (Jul. 26, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010178 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims of Defendant Circus Circus for ''Unjust Enrichment'' and Breach of Contract (Jul. 25, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010179 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Rebuttal of Defendant Tunica County Tourism Commission to Plaintiff Cherry Graziosi's Response to Tunica County Tourism Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment (Jul. 25, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 3878901 (Partial Expert Testimony) (Partial Testimony) (Jul. 8, 2005)

•  2005 WL 3878906 (Partial Expert Testimony) (Partial Testimony) (Jul. 8, 2005)

•  2005 WL 3878907 (Partial Expert Testimony) (Partial Testimony) (Jul. 8, 2005)

•  2005 WL 5798067 (Partial Expert Testimony) Deposition of Alex Tajirian (Jun. 20, 2005)

•  2005 WL 5870774 (Expert Deposition) Deposition of Alex Tajirian (Jun. 20, 2005)

•  2005 WL 6010176 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for a Separate Trial (Jun. 17, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010177 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Defendants' Memorandum Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims, or in the Alternative, for Separate Trial (Jun. 17, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 3878905 (Expert Report and Affidavit) (Report or Affidavit of Alex Tajirian) (Jun. 14, 2005)

•  2005 WL 6010175 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Casino Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (Jun. 14, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010194 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Plaintiff Cherry Graziosi's Response to Tunica County Tourism Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment (Jun. 14, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010190 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims, or in the Alternative, for Separate Trial (May 31, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010191 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims, or in the Alternative, for Separate Trial (May 31, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010192 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims, or in the Alternative, for Separate Trial (May 31, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010193 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Memorandum Brief of the Casino-Related Defendants, Including the Tunica County Operators Association, Inc., in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (May 31, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 3879137 (Expert Report and Affidavit) Rule 26 (a) Expert Report (May 23, 2005)

•  2005 WL 3878904 (Expert Report and Affidavit) Rule 26 (a) (2) Expert Report (May 18, 2005)

•  2005 WL 6010189 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Defendants' Emergency Motion Under Miss. Unif. Dist. Ct. Rule 7.2(H) to Strike Expert Supplementation, for Extension of Relevant Deadlines or for Continuance with Memorandum of Authorities (May 4, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010185 (Trial Pleading) Reply to Counterclaim by Defendant/Counterclaimant Barden Mississippi Gaming, LLC (D/B/A ''Fitzgerald's Hotel and Casino'') (Apr. 12, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010186 (Trial Pleading) Reply to Counterclaim by Defendant/Counterclaimant Bally's Olympia Limited Partnership (D/B/A ''Bally's Saloon & Gambling Hall'') (Apr. 12, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010187 (Trial Pleading) Reply to Counterclaim Defendant/Counterclaimant Tunica Partners II L.P. (D/B/A ''Harrah's Tunica Mardi Gras Casino'') (Apr. 12, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010188 (Trial Pleading) Reply to Counterclaim by Defendant/Counterclaimant Boyd Tunica. Inc. (d/b/a ''Sam's Town Hotel & Gambling'') (Apr. 12, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 3878903 (Expert Report and Affidavit) (Report or Affidavit of Alex Tajirian) (Apr. 11, 2005)

•  2005 WL 6010206 (Trial Pleading) Reply to Counterclaims By Defendant/Counterclaimant Circus Circus Mississippi, Inc. (D/B/A ''Gold Strike Casino Resort'') (Apr. 11, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010207 (Trial Pleading) Reply to Counterclaim by Defendant/Counterclaimant Sheraton Tunica Corporation (D/B/A ''Sheraton Casino & Hotel'') (Apr. 11, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010205 (Trial Pleading) Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Tunica County Tourism Commission to First Amended Complaint (Mar. 14, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010199 (Trial Pleading) Answer and Counterclaim of Boyd Tunica, Inc. (d/b/a ''Sam's Town Hotel & Gambling'') to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Mar. 7, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010200 (Trial Pleading) Answer and Counterclaim of Sheraton Tunica Corporation (D/B/A ''Sheraton Casino & Hotel'') to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Mar. 7, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010201 (Trial Pleading) Answer and Counterclaim of Tunica Partners II L.P. (d/b/a ''Harrah's Tunica Mardi Gras Casino'') to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Mar. 7, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010202 (Trial Pleading) Answer and Counterclaim of BL Development Corporation (D/B/A ''Grand Casino Tunica'') to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Mar. 7, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010203 (Trial Pleading) Answer and Counterclaim of Bally's Olympia Limited Partnership (D/B/A ''Bally's Saloon & Gambling Hall'') to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Mar. 7, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010204 (Trial Pleading) Answer and Counterclaim of Robinson Property Group, Limited Partnership (D/B/A ''Horseshoe Casino & Hotel'') to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Mar. 7, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010197 (Trial Pleading) Answer and Affirmative Defenses of HWCC-Tunica, Inc. (d/b/a ''Hollywood Casino Tunica'') to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Mar. 3, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010198 (Trial Pleading) Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Tunica Casino Operators Association to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Mar. 3, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 6010196 (Trial Pleading) Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and Counterclaim of Barden Mississippi Gaming, LLC (Feb. 25, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

•  2005 WL 3879138 (Expert Report and Affidavit) Report of William F. Shughart II, Ph.D. on Behalf of Defendants (Feb. 11, 2005)

•  2005 WL 6010195 (Trial Pleading) First Amended Complaint (Feb. 11, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

END OF DOCUMENT