By Josh Resnek
First came an amended complaint from Suffolk Downs in the federal court two weeks ago alleging that the mayor took kickbacks for the casino land deal and alleging the casino license was stolen from them by the Wynn consortium, who have proven themselves to be unsuitable.
Now comes Steve Wynn and Wynn Resorts responding in federal court, answering the charges leveled in that amended complaint claiming it is irrelevant, and does not correspond or conform to the law as it is written.
“ Mr. Wynn respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice. To the extent the other defendants’ motions raise arguments not inconsistent with those contained herein, Mr. Wynn adopts those arguments,” wrote Attorneys Brian Kelly and Joshua Sharp, for Nixon Peabody LLP, who filed the motion for dismissal last week.
Noticeably absent from these proceedings is the voice and the political reach of former Governor Bill Weld, who worked ML Strategies to deliver a license to Mr. Wynn and Wynn Resorts, and who has worked to save the license.
Weld has apparently removed himself from this legal process but it is believed to have already pulled the strings to bring a victory to Steve Wynn and Wynn Resorts, although this remains to be seen.
The Nixon Peabody lawyers have constructed a stunning regurgitation of legal renderings in their motion to dismiss.
There are in what is called a table of authorities, no less than 36 federal cases sited in addition to 6 state case, three statutes, and 2 federal rules.
“The Amended complaint fails to state a claim against Mr. Wynn or any other defendant and is devoid of any allegations of legal consequence. Rather than defend its original complaint in the face of Mr. Wynn’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiff chose to re-plead with little more than innuendo,” states the Nixon Peabody lawyers in their motion to dismiss.
Their response attempts to deflate and to debunk Suffolk Downs – Sterling Suffolk as it is named in the complaint changed the entire narrative.
The Suffolk Downs narrative alleges the Wynn consortium won and they lost – a metaphor claiming the bad guys won and the good guys lost.
Wynn’s lawyers have constructed an answer that deconstructs that assertion.
The Suffolk Downs lawsuit is filed under a federal RICO act making it a hard case to prevail because of the complexities of filing under that act.
The answer to this case will given by the judge overseeing it. She has the right to toss out Suffolk Downs or to allow them to move forward.
It isn’t all about the law.
The federal judge can write new law when judges a case.
She can say: let’s talk a closer look or let’s be done with it.
What exactly happens next is up to the judge.