Parise v. Detroit Entertainment, LLC

Italo Parise (plaintiff) alleged that between 2002 and 2009, he lost over $600,000 gambling at MotorCity Casino, the business name of Detroit Entertainment, LLC (MotorCity) (defendant). Parise brought an action against MotorCity to recover the gambling losses under MCL 600.2939(1), a Michigan statute providing that a plaintiff could recover money or goods lost through gaming with a defendant. MotorCity moved for summary disposition of the action, asserting that Parise could not rely on 600.2939(1) to recover his losses because MotorCity was a Detroit casino licensee subject to the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act (MGCRA), which exclusively regulated legalized non-Indian casino gambling in Detroit. Specifically, MotorCity argued that Parise’s action was precluded by § 3 of the MGCRA, which provided that laws inconsistent with the MGCRA did not apply to casino gaming that was permissible under the MGCRA. The trial court agreed and granted MotorCity’s motion for summary disposition. Parise appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Parise argued, among other things, that the MGCRA defined “casino gaming” more narrowly than the common-law definition of “gaming” applicable to MCL 600.2939(1). According to Parise, the different definitions meant that even though a casino licensee might be engaged in “casino gaming” regulated by the MGCRA, a casino patron could be engaged merely in common-law “gaming” and thus be able to recover losses from the casino. Parise also asserted that the MGCRA governed only casinos and not casino patrons.