Summary Judgments Sought In New Jersey Sports Betting Case

Requests from both sides made two days before oral arguments due to be heard

It seems that lawyers for New Jersey and the national sports leagues have similar strategies if different perspectives in the legal wrangle over the legalisation of sports betting in New Jersey (see previous InfoPowa reports).

Both have approached the court with requests for a summary judgment in the case, in which Judge Michael Shipp is due to hear oral arguments in just two days' time on whether his temporary injunction against the state is to be made permanent or lifted.

The sports leagues claim that the only reason to have a trial is where there are disputed factual issues…and the leagues' position is that this is the case and there is no need for a trial. State AG John Hoffman has a similar view, but feels that the facts are on New Jersey's side.

Complicating the issue is the position of the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association, which has up to now allied itself to the state, but wants a full trial on the merits of the case.

THA attorney Ron Riccio points out that the sports leagues have entered into fantasy sports leagues and have become competitors of his clients, "…rather than supposed guardians of their reputations of the integrity of their games."

State and leagues attorneys are of the view that a summary judgment rather than a full trial would expedite the process, and allow either party to move faster to the appeals level.

Online Casino News Courtesy of Infopowa

More news

here.