Supreme Court criticizes LV over Big Game case

Thursday, Sept. 30, 1999 | 11:46 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court has scolded Las Vegas city officials for failing to pay enough attention to a District Court suit in which a company sought to build a controversial neighborhood hotel-casino.

But the court agreed with Senior District Judge Carl Christensen that the city was entitled to a second chance to present its case, which has dragged on for four years and has been presided over by at least three district judges.

Big Game Club owned a 53-acre shopping center at Charleston and Decatur boulevards, in which it operated a tavern with 35 slot machines. It sought to build a hotel-casino with more than 200 rooms, saying it was grandfathered in under a 1989 Las Vegas ordinance and did not have to apply for a special-use permit.

The 1989 ordinance was aimed at limiting neighborhood casinos, and city officials maintained the Big Game Club preserved only the rights to 35 slot machines in a bar and was not entitled to build a hotel-casino without a special-use permit.

The city denied Big Game's request in 1994, and a lawsuit followed. In the time the lawsuit has wended its way through court, the Legislature has changed the law to prohibit a hotel-casino on the site, and the Big Game Club has lost the 53-acre parcel to foreclosure.

Big Game Club may not be able to build a hotel-casino on the site, but if it wins in court it could seek damages.

The court battle began in 1994 with a ruling by District Judge Stephen Huffaker in favor of the gaming company after a trial in which the city did not present any evidence or witnesses. Big Game Club then applied for a special-use permit but was turned down.

Huffaker disqualified himself from the case after controversy erupted over the ruling, and Senior District Judge Jim Brennan started hearing motions on whether a new trial should be granted. But he stepped aside saying he had once owned stock in a casino in Laughlin, posing a possible conflict of interest.

The case was assigned to Christensen, who granted a motion by the city for a new trial in 1996. The Big Game Club challenged the ruling, and the Nevada Resort Association entered the case on the side of the city, trying to block the new casino.

The Supreme Court in its ruling Monday agreed the city was entitled to another hearing. But it said the record of the District Court "reflects that the city did not devote sufficient attention to this case in the first instance, and simply assumed that its interpretation of the ordinance would prevail.

"Only after the initial result was unfavorable did the city appear to take the matter seriously. In the future, the city would do well to prepare adequately for trial, even if it believes the position of the opposing party to be without merit," the court said.

In talking about the case, the court said, "We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there were several errors in law which provided proper grounds for a new trial. ..."

The court said errors in the district court's first ruling included the failure to give deference to the city's interpretation of its own ordinance and the failure to construe the gaming ordinance strictly against the licensee.

It said the adoption of the initial court's ruling is "likely to cause mischief and lead to absurd results." The city said it learned after the Huffaker decision that there were 17 other sites that could be used for neighborhood casinos if the ruling was allowed to stand.

The court said Christensen does not have to conduct a full trial again but may take additional testimony and change his ruling.