RJAM, INC. Plaintiff-Appellant
LEON MILETELLO D/B/A L.S.M. AMUSEMENT COMPANY, L.S.M. GAMING, INC. AND LOGANSPORT GAMING, L.L.C. Defendant-Appellee
from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish
of DeSoto, Louisiana Trial Court No. 58890 Honorable Charles
Blaylock Adams, Judge.
CHARLES MORRIS RUSH Counsel for Appellant.
KENNETH R. ANTEE, JR. Counsel for Appellee.
SHELTON, WILLIAMS, Counsel for Appellee.
& PAINE, LLC By: Lee H. Ayres By: Stacey A. Smith Jeremy
Evans, In his Capacity as Clerk of Court for DeSoto Parish,
WILLIAMS, LOLLEY, and STONE, JJ.
plaintiff, RJAM, Inc. ("RJAM") appeals the ruling
of the 42nd Judicial District Court, Desoto Parish, in which
the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in
favor of Leon Miletello d/b/a L.S.M. Amusement Company,
L.S.M. Gaming, Inc., and Logansport Gaming, L.L.C.
("Miletello"), finding RJAM cannot meet the
suitability requirements in order to collect damages for the
breach of a video gaming contract it entered into with
Miletello. For the following reasons, we affirm the ruling of
the trial court.
September 24, 1998, RJAM sued Miletello for breach of
contract. On April 25, 2011, the 42nd Judicial District Court
("42nd JDC" or "trial court") granted a
judgment awarding RJAM $184, 681.00 in damages. In its
judgment, the trial court made the following stipulation:
IT IS ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED that RJAM, INC., is not
entitled to collect any damages until such time as the
following conditions are met: RJAM, INC. is determined by the
Gaming Division of the Louisiana State Police to have been
suitable to be awarded damages under the contract for the
time period awarded March 1998 to October 1999. IT IS FURTHER
ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED that if RJAM satisfies the
conditions stated above, or if such conditions precedent are
overturned, the Court finds RJAM is entitled to receive
damages . . .
RJAM, Inc. v. Miletello, 47, 218 (La.App. 2d Cir.
08/08/12), 103 So.3d 503, this Court amended the trial
court's ruling and found RJAM was entitled to a damage
award of $194, 598.52 ("monetary judgment") against
Miletello. We affirmed the trial court's ruling that RJAM
was not entitled to collect any damages until it is
determined by the Gaming Division of the Louisiana State
Police to have been suitable to be awarded damages under the
contract for the time period awarded March 1998 to October
1999 ("condition precedent").
October 24, 2013, RJAM filed a petition with the State of
Louisiana Gaming Control Board ("the Board")
requesting the Board find RJAM suitable so that it could
collect on its monetary judgment. On December 10, 2013, the
Board dismissed RJAM's petition ex proprio motu,
The Louisiana Gaming Control Board lacks jurisdiction to
render a suitability determination under the circumstances
presented. The Board may render a suitability determination
only for the purpose of administering and enforcing gaming
law in the regulation of gaming activities and operations and
in connection with an existing video gaming license or
December 16, 2013, RJAM filed a motion and order to reinstate
petition. On December 17, 2013, the Board denied RJAM's
request to reinstate. Thereafter, on March 16, 2015, RJAM
filed a petition for mandamus and/or declaratory judgment in
the 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Parish
("19th JDC") against the State of Louisiana through
the Gaming Control Board. In its petition, RJAM requested the
[R]ender a determination of suitability, conditional
suitability, exemption from, or waiver of suitability for
limited purpose of enforcing its judgment awarded by the
Second Circuit Court of Appeal, or alternatively that there
be a declaratory judgment that the condition precedent
requiring RJAM to be determined as suitable ("condition
precedent") to enforce the judgment is impossible making
the obligation null and therefore there are no impediments to