About this app
About Diamond Of Jungle
Under IGRA, gaming is generally prohibited on land taken into trust after 1988 unless it qualifies under specific exceptions. Scotts Valley claims its Vallejo property falls under the “restored lands” exception for federally recognized tribes.
While Interior agreed that Scotts Valley met requirements regarding its modern ties to the area and the timing of the acquisition, the department ultimately concluded the tribe failed to demonstrate a sufficiently significant historical connection to the land.
In court Friday, DOJ attorney Amber Dutton-Bynum argued that Scotts Valley could not meet the high threshold for irreparable harm required to secure an injunction. She maintained that the tribe knowingly chose to invest in the Preview Casino while its gaming status remained uncertain, as reported by Law360. Dutton-Bynum added that the modular buildings could easily be repurposed for non-gaming commercial uses if the prohibition stands.
How to play Diamond Of Jungle
The second expansion is expected to take about 18 months and remains on schedule to open during the second half of 2027, according to Red Rock Resorts president Scott Kreeger.
The latest project will add more than 275,000 square feet to the north side of the resort. The expanded casino floor will include 400 additional slot machines, while new entertainment options will include a 36-lane bowling facility and luxury movie theaters.
One of the largest additions will be Moonshine Flats, a country-western bar and entertainment venue. The two-story facility will cover about 29,000 square feet.
About Diamond Of Jungle
George Hasselback is done with Imperial Pacific International (IPI). The attorney has been representing the controversial and incompetent casino operator as it defended itself in a lawsuit filed by Fox Financial, as well as others, but has now washed his hands and stepped away. He had filed a request to withdraw from representing the company on February 12, and a judge granted his petition yesterday. Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy agreed with Hasselback in his assertion that continued representation would put him in an ethical conundrum.
Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”
Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.
