Filing # 185676773 E-Filed 11/07/2023 05:01:09 PM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

WEST FLAGLER ASSOCIATES, LTD.,

et al.,

Petitioners,

v. SC2023-1333

RON D. DESANTIS, etc., et al.,

Respondents.
______________________________________/

MOTION TO EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR

ALL WRITS RELIEF PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR
WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO AND SUSPEND THE SPORTS
BETTING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN
§§ 285.710(13)(B)(7) & 849.142, FLA. STAT.

BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Raquel A. Rodriguez, FBN 511439

2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste 1500 [email protected]
Miami, FL 33131 Sammy Epelbaum, FBN 31524
(305) 347-4080 [email protected]

-and- -and-

401 E. Jackson St., Ste 2400 Hala Sandridge, FBN 454362

Tampa, FL 33602 [email protected]
(813) 222-8180 Chance Lyman, FBN 107526
[email protected]

Attorneys for Petitioners

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. THE REASON FOR THE EXIGENCY ....................................... 2

A. The Seminole Tribe Has Launched Sports Betting

Statewide ....................................................................... 2

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................................... 3

A. The Proceedings Before This Court. ................................ 3

B. The Proceedings in Federal Court. .................................. 4

C. The Tribe’s Sports Betting Operations. ........................... 7

III. ARGUMENT ........................................................................... 7

A. The Court is Authorized Under its “All Writs” Power

to Enter All Writs Necessary to Maintain the Status
Quo. ............................................................................... 7

B. The Court Should Use its “All Writs” Power to

Immediately and Temporarily Suspend the Sports
Betting Provisions of the Implementing Law. .................. 9

IV. CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE........................................................ 144

i
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Amends. to Fla. Rule of Crim. Proc. 3.853(d)(1)(A)

(Postconviction DNA Testing), 857 So. 2d 190 (Fla.
1998) ................................................................................... 8, 12

Chiles v. Phelps,
714 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1998) ....................................................... 10

Florida Senate v. Graham,

412 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1982) ....................................................... 11

League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Data Targeting, Inc.,

140 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 2014) ................................................... 8, 12

Monroe Ed. Ass’n v. Clerk, Dist. Ct. of Appeal, Third Dist.,

299 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974) ............................................................. 9

Petit v. Adams,
211 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1968) ............................................... 8, 9, 12

Roberts v. Brown,
43 So. 3d 673 (Fla. 2010) ..................................................... 8, 12

W. Flagler Associates, Ltd. et al. v. Haaland,

573 F. Supp. 3d 260 (D.D.C. 2021) .............................. 4, 5, 7, 10

W. Flagler Assocs., Ltd. v. Haaland,

71 F.4th 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (“Haaland II”) ............................. 5

West Flagler Assoc. Ltd., et al. v. Haaland, et al.,

U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 23A315.................................... 6, 7

Statutes

Florida Statutes Section 285.710(13)(B)(7)...................................... 1

Florida Statutes Section 849.142 ................................................... 1

ii
Florida Statutes Section 925.11(1)(b) .......................................... 8, 9

Rules

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853(d)(1)(A) ........................... 8

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(3) .............................. 1

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c)................................... 1

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100 ...................................... 1

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.300(d)(10) ............................ 1

Florida Constitution

Florida Constitution Article V, Section 3(b)(7) ......................... 1, 4, 7

Florida Constitution Article X, Section 30 ............................... 11, 12

iii
 Petitioners, West Flagler Associates, Ltd. (“West Flagler”),

Bonita-Fort Myers Corporation d/b/a Springs Poker Room (“Bonita

Springs”) and Isadore Havenick (collectively, “Petitioners”), pursuant

to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(3), 9.100, and

9.300(d)(10) and article V, section 3(b)(7) of the Florida Constitution,1

hereby move the Court to expedite the exercise of its all writs

jurisdiction to immediately suspend the sports betting provisions of

sections 285.710(13)(b)(7) and 849.142 of the Florida Statutes (the

“Implementing Law”) pending a final ruling on the Petition for Writ of

Quo Warranto (the “Petition”). This exigency has been created by the

launch of the Seminole Tribe’s mobile betting application on

November 7, 2023, without prior warning. In support of this request

for expedited consideration of the “all writs” relief requested in the

Petition, Petitioners state:

1 Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c), to the

extent this Court determines that Petitioners have sought an
improper remedy or utilized an improper procedural mechanism,
Petitioners respectfully request that this Court treat this cause as if
the proper remedy had been sought.
 I. THE REASON FOR THE EXIGENCY

A. The Seminole Tribe Has Launched Sports Betting

Statewide

1. On November 7, 2023, the Seminole Tribe of Florida (the

“Tribe”) launched its mobile sports betting application. See App. 6-

22. This launch was not previously announced and came as a

surprise. On November 1, 2023, the Tribe announced that

commencing December 7, 2023, it was commencing the games

authorized by the 2021 Compact at its tribal casinos. See App. 3-5.

Nowhere did the Tribe mention off-reservation mobile betting, and

the widespread understanding was that the references to sports

betting were in-person sports betting, which is not the subject of the

instant Petition. See App. 3-5. In order to avoid burdening this Court

with a request for expedited consideration in the absence of concrete

proof that the Tribe was actually about to implement mobile sports

betting statewide, Petitioners had desisted from asking the Court to

expedite its consideration of the Petition’s request for “all writs” relief.

2. Taking advantage of the distraction created by their

carefully crafted announcement on November 1, the Tribe has sought

to surprise the Petitioners and this Court by presenting a “fait

2
accompli” on November 7th. It has indeed taken live bets as of today.

See App. 6-22.

3. The only remedy available to prevent disruption of the

status quo until the Court rules on the Petition is for the Court to

use its “all writs” jurisdiction to immediately suspend the off-

reservation sports betting provisions in the Implementing Law that

purport to authorize the Tribe to conduct sports betting statewide

until the Court has an opportunity to rule on the Petition.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Proceedings Before This Court.

4. On September 25, 2023, Petitioners filed their Petition. 2

5. The Petition asks the Court to issue a writ of quo warranto

to the Respondents on the grounds that they exceeded their

constitutional authority in enacting legislation expanding casino

gambling in this state without a citizen’s approval.

6. In addition, the Petition requests that the Court exercise

its “all writs” power under article V, section 3(b)(7) of the Florida

2 The factual history necessitating a writ of quo warranto is detailed

in § IV of the Petition.

3
Constitution to temporarily suspend the sports betting provisions of

the Implementing Law in order to maintain the status quo pending a

final ruling in this proceeding. Petition at 61. 3

7. On October 16, 2023, Amicus Curiae, No Casinos, Inc.,

filed its amicus curiae brief in support of the Petition.

8. Respondents’, Ron DeSantis, in his capacity as Governor

of Florida, Paul Renner, in his capacity as Speaker of the Florida

House of Representatives, and Kathleen Passidomo, in her capacity

as President of the Senate (collectively, “Respondents”), response to

the Petition is currently due on December 1, 2023.

B. The Proceedings in Federal Court.

9. As detailed in the Petition, in a federal Administrative

Procedure Act (“APA”) lawsuit known as W. Flagler Associates, Ltd. et

al. v. Haaland, West Flagler and Bonita Springs challenged the U.S.

Secretary of the Interior’s Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”)

3 As of the date of this motion, the Court has not yet ruled on the
Petitioners’ request to temporarily suspend the offending provisions
of the Implementing Law.

4
approval of the gaming compact entered into by the State of Florida

and the Tribe in 2021 (the “2021 Compact”):

• On November 22, 2021, the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in
favor of West Flagler and Bonita Springs, W. Flagler
Associates, Ltd. et al. v. Haaland, 573 F. Supp. 3d 260
(D.D.C. 2021) (“Haaland I”), thus invalidating the 2021
Compact.

• On June 30, 2023, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of

Appeals reversed the district court, W. Flagler Assocs., Ltd.
v. Haaland, 71 F.4th 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (“Haaland II”),
but the reversal was stayed pending a motion for rehearing
en banc.

• On September 11, 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

denied the motion for rehearing en banc.

Petition at 30-31. Importantly, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

found that the 2021 Compact “‘authorizes’ only the Tribe’s activity

on its own lands, that is operating the sports book and receiving the

wagers” and not placing wagers off tribal lands. Id. at 1066.

10. Following the filing of the Petition, Chief Justice John

Roberts recalled and stayed the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’

mandate on October 12, 2023, pending a forthcoming application by

West Flagler and Bonita Springs to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ

of certiorari. Order, Oct. 12, 2023, West Flagler Assoc. Ltd., et al. v.

Haaland, et al., U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 23A315.

5
 11. On October 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted its

stay. Order, Oct. 25, 2023, West Flagler Assoc. Ltd., et al. v. Haaland,

et al., U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 23A315. In the order lifting the

stay, Justice Kavanaugh stated that:

I agree that the stay application should be denied in light

of the D. C. Circuit’s pronouncement that the compact be-
tween Florida and the Seminole Tribe authorizes the Tribe
to conduct only on-reservation gaming operations, and not
off-reservation gaming operations. If the compact
authorized the Tribe to conduct off-reservation gaming
operations, either directly or by deeming off-reservation
gaming operations to somehow be on-reservation, then the
compact would likely violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act, as the District Court explained.

To the extent that a separate Florida statute (as distinct

from the compact) authorizes the Seminole Tribe—and
only the Seminole Tribe—to conduct certain off-
reservation gaming operations in Florida, the state law
raises serious equal protection issues. But the state law’s
constitutionality is not squarely presented in this
application, and the Florida Supreme Court is in any event
currently considering state-law issues related to the
Tribe’s potential off-reservation gaming operations.

Id. (internal citations omitted). See Notice of Supplemental Authority,

filed October 26, 2023.

6
 C. The Tribe’s Sports Betting Operations.

12. Up until October 25, 2023, the 2021 Compact was void

under Haaland I and the Tribe was not permitted to conduct any

sports betting operations under the Implementing Law.

13. The Tribe has now commenced its statewide mobile sports

betting operations under the flawed premise that the 2021 Compact

permits it to accept bets wagered from off its tribal lands.4 App. 6-

22.

14. This motion immediately followed.

III. ARGUMENT

A. The Court is Authorized Under its “All Writs” Power to

Enter All Writs Necessary to Maintain the Status Quo.

Article V, section 3(b)(7) of the Florida Constitution grants the

Florida Supreme Court the power to issue “all writs necessary to

complete the exercise of its jurisdiction.” As the Court has

explained, the “all writs” power “is not an independent basis for

jurisdiction, [but the] Court may utilize the constitutional all writs

provision as a means of preserving jurisdiction that has already been

4 Except for a brief and tentative time, the Tribe did not operate its
off-reservation sports betting while the federal APA action was
pending.

7
invoked or protecting jurisdiction that likely will be invoked in the

future.” League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Data Targeting, Inc., 140

So. 3d 510, 513 (Fla. 2014) (quotation marks and emphasis

omitted). Thus, the Court is authorized to use its “all writs” power

to “preserve the status quo and protect the Court’s ability to

completely exercise jurisdiction at a future time.” Id. (citing Petit v.

Adams, 211 So. 2d 565, 566 (Fla. 1968)); Roberts v. Brown, 43 So.

3d 673, 684 (Fla. 2010) (precluding any future action).

In Amends. to Fla. Rule of Crim. Proc. 3.853(d)(1)(A)

(Postconviction DNA Testing), 857 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2003), for example,

this Court used its “all writs” power to suspend Rule 3.853(d)(1)(A) of

the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and “held in abeyance” the

statutory deadline contained in section 925.11(1)(b) of the Florida

Statutes in order to maintain the status quo. The Court noted that

without exercising its “all writs” power to suspend those laws, the

Court’s consideration of the challenge before it would preclude the

Court from the “complete exercise” of its jurisdiction. Id.

The Court has exercised its “all writs” power to preserve the

status quo even when it was uncertain whether it would grant any

final relief. See, e.g., Petit, 211 So. 2d at 568 (initially directing the

8
respondent under its “all writs” authority to “refrain” from certain

action to protect the Court’s “complete exercise of jurisdiction,” but

then denying the underlying writ of mandamus because the Court

“did not have jurisdiction … to entertain these proceedings”); see also

Monroe Ed. Ass’n v. Clerk, Dist. Ct. of Appeal, Third Dist., 299 So. 2d

1, 3 (Fla. 1974) (explaining that “certain cases present extraordinary

circumstances involving great public interest where emergencies and

seasonable considerations are involved that require[s]” the Court to

exercise its constitutional “all writs” powers).

B. The Court Should Use its “All Writs” Power to

Immediately and Temporarily Suspend the Sports
Betting Provisions of the Implementing Law.

The Petition raises a critical question about the authority of the

Executive and Legislative branches to act in contravention of the

limits placed upon them by the Florida Constitution. Because the

functions of government are affected, this Court has recognized that

a quo warranto proceeding is an expedited proceeding. See Chiles v.

Phelps, 714 So. 2d 453, 457 n.6 (Fla. 1998) (original proceeding in

quo warranto appropriate where functions of government affected

absent immediate determination by the Court).

9
 However, Respondents’ response to the Petition is not due until

December 1, 2023. On this briefing schedule, the Court is unlikely

to render a final ruling on the Petition until later in 2024. In the

meantime, absent an expedited ruling on Petitioners’ “all writs”

request, the Tribe will apparently continue with its off-reservation

sports betting operations in contravention of the Florida

Constitution, see Haaland I, Haaland II, and Justice Kavanaugh’s

statement, supra, potentially raking in millions of dollars in sports

bets that this Court may eventually find were authorized in

contravention of the Florida Constitution and derogation of the

People’s right to decide on the expansion of casino gambling.

More importantly, even if this Court ultimately enforces the

citizens’ will as expressed in article X, section 30 of the Florida

Constitution, Florida’s citizenry will be irreparably harmed in the

interim since the Tribe’s mobile sports betting was ostensibly

authorized through Respondent’s usurpation of the People’s

constitutional power; this is true even if this violation only occurs for

a short time while a final ruling on the Petition is pending. See

Florida Senate v. Graham, 412 So. 2d 360, 361 (Fla. 1982) (Court

exercised all writs jurisdiction to declare invalid the Governor’s call

10
for legislative session on apportionment to conclude in less than 30

days in order to complete exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction

over apportionment). Petitioners (and other non-tribal operators of

gaming facilities that cannot offer sports betting) also will suffer

additional irreparable harm during this this time since they will lose

customers, revenues, and goodwill to the Tribe as a result of the

unconstitutional authorization of the Implementing Law.

The extraordinary actions of Respondents to side-step the will

of the citizens of Florida and the Florida Constitution, enabling the

Tribe’s actions, mandates the immediate exercise of the Court’s “all

writs” power as requested in the Petition. Absent an order

suspending the offending provisions of the Implementing Law, the

Court will be deprived of its ability to afford complete relief in this

proceeding. The damage caused by even a few months of sports

betting in violation of the Florida Constitution will be irreparable.

The Court’s jurisdiction (and the will of the People) must be protected

in toto. See Amends. to Fla. Rule of Crim. Proc. 3.853(d)(1)(A)

(Postconviction DNA Testing), 857 So. 2d at 190; League of Women

Voters of Fla., 140 So. 3d at 513; Petit, 211 So. 2d at 566; Roberts,

43 So. 3d at 684.

11
 On the other hand, no irreparable harm will befall the

Respondents if the status quo is maintained. The sports betting

provisions of the Implementing Law represent a paradigm shift in

Florida’s approach to tribal gaming that is inapposite to article X,

section 30 of the Florida Constitution. A temporary suspension of

the offending provisions of the Implementing Law—which will ensure

the status quo, i.e., no sports betting statewide—will therefore have

no impact on the Court’s authority to afford any relief in this

proceeding.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that

the Court maintain the status quo and use its “all writs” power to

temporarily and immediately suspend the sports betting provisions

of the Implementing Law until a final ruling on the Petition is entered

by the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste 1500
Miami, FL 33131
(305) 347-4080

-and-

12
401 E. Jackson St., Ste 2400
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 222-8180

By: /s/ Raquel A. Rodriguez

Raquel A. Rodriguez, FBN 511439
[email protected]
Sammy Epelbaum, FBN 31524
[email protected]
Hala Sandridge, FBN 454362
[email protected]
Chance Lyman, FBN 107526
[email protected]

13
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 7, 2023, a true and

accurate copy of the foregoing has been furnished via the E-Portal to:

Ryan Newman, General Counsel, Executive Office of the Governor,

400 S. Monroe St., Tallahassee, FL 32399,

[email protected], counsel for Respondent Ron

DeSantis, in his capacity as Governor of Florida; David Axelman,

General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Florida House of

Representatives, 317 The Capitol, #402, Tallahassee, FL 32399,

[email protected], counsel for the Respondent Paul

Renner, in his capacity as Speaker of the Florida House of

Representatives; Carols Rey, General Counsel, Florida Senate, 302

The Capitol, 404 S. Monroe St., Tallahassee, FL 32399,

[email protected], counsel for Kathleen Passimodo, in her

capacity as President of the Senate; Ashley Moody, Attorney General,

Office of the Attorney General, PL-01 The Capitol, Tallahassee, FL

32399, [email protected]; Henry C. Whitaker,

Solicitor General, Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Chief Deputy Solicitor

General, Christopher J. Baum, Senior Deputy Solicitor General,

Office of the Attorney General, The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee,

14
Florida 32399 (850) 414-3300

[email protected], counsel for Respondents; and

Todd K. Norman and Olivia R. Share, Nelson Mullins, 390 N. Orange

Ave., Suite 1400, Orlando, Florida 32801, (407) 839-4200,

[email protected], [email protected],

Counsel for Amicus Curiae, No Casinos, Inc.

By: /s/ Raquel A. Rodriguez

Raquel A. Rodriguez, FBN 511439
[email protected]

15