Debra Johnson v. Jefferson County Racing Association, Inc., d/b/a the Birmingham Race Course (Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court: CV-06-6921). Affirmed. No Opinion.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 08/24/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2012 1100844 Debra Johnson v. J e f f e r s o n County Racing A s s o c i a t i o n , Inc., d/b/a the Birmingham Race Course Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-06-6921) PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. See R u l e 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d (a) ( 2 ) ( F ) , A l a . R. A p p . P. M a l o n e , C . J . , a n d W o o d a l l , S t u a r t , B o l i n , M u r d o c k , Shaw, and W i s e , J J . , concur. Parker, J . , dissents. 1100844 PARKER, J u s t i c e (dissenting). B e c a u s e I am d i s s e n t i n g f r o m a n o - o p i n i o n a f f i r m a n c e , b r i e f r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e f a c t s i s n e c e s s a r y t o summarize Johnson's action against the Jefferson County A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . , d/b/a t h e B i r m i n g h a m Race C o u r s e This i s not the f i r s t Court. time t h i s a Debra Racing ("JCRA"). a c t i o n has come b e f o r e this I n J o h n s o n v. J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y R a c i n g A s s ' n , I n c . , 1 So. 3d 960 ( A l a . 2008) ("Johnson I " ) , t h i s Court s e t f o r t h the f a c t s and p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y o f t h i s a c t i o n , as follows: "Johnson b r o u g h t the p r e s e n t a c t i o n f o l l o w i n g t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n B a r b e r v. J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y R a c i n g A s s ' n , I n c . , 960 So. 2d 599, 604 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , i n w h i c h we d e t e r m i n e d t h a t an a c t i v i t y a d v e r t i s e d as 'Quincy's MegaSweeps' ('the MegaSweeps') i n i t i a t e d by I n n o v a t i v e S w e e p s t a k e s S y s t e m s , I n c . , a t t h e B i r m i n g h a m Race C o u r s e ' i n v o l v e [ d ] t h e u s e o f s l o t machines,' a gambling device t h a t i s i l l e g a l i n A l a b a m a . J o h n s o n s u e d JCRA p u r s u a n t t o § 8 - 1 - 1 5 0 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , on h e r own b e h a l f and on b e h a l f o f a c l a s s of s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d persons, seeking to r e c o v e r money t h a t s h e , and o t h e r s , h a d p a i d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e MegaSweeps. 2 "JCRA moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o c o m p e l J o h n s o n t o arbitrate her claims and t o d i s m i s s Johnson's a c t i o n . JCRA a r g u e d t h a t by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e MegaSweeps, J o h n s o n h a d a s s e n t e d t o t h e a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n found i n the ' o f f i c i a l r u l e s ' f o r the MegaSweeps ('the MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t ' ) . Johnson o p p o s e d JCRA's m o t i o n , a r g u i n g t h a t JCRA c o u l d n o t establish a v a l i d contract c a l l i n g for arbitration. S p e c i f i c a l l y , J o h n s o n a r g u e d t h a t t h e MegaSweeps contract amounted to a contract f o u n d e d on a 3 2 1100844 g a m b l i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e contract i s void and unenforceable under § 8 - 1 - 1 5 0 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975. J o h n s o n a l t e r n a t i v e l y a r g u e d t h a t , e v e n i f t h e MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t i s n o t v o i d i n i t s e n t i r e t y , b e c a u s e one o f t h e MegaSweeps rules includes a void-where-prohibited-by-law p r o v i s i o n , the a r b i t r a t i o n clause found i n those r u l e s i s v o i d and u n e n f o r c e a b l e . "The trial court noted that 'the c r u x o f [Johnson]'s complaint i s t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t as a w h o l e , i n c l u d i n g t h e a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n , was r e n d e r e d v o i d o r i n v a l i d by t h e C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n B a r b e r [v. J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y R a c i n g A s s ' n , I n c . , 960 So. 2d 599 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ] . ' R e l y i n g on t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n B u c k e y e Check C a s h i n g , I n c . v. C a r d e g n a , 546 U.S. 440, 126 S. C t . 1204, 163 L. E d . 2d 1038 ( 2 0 0 6 ) , t h e t r i a l court t h e n d e t e r m i n e d t h a t b e c a u s e J o h n s o n ' s c h a l l e n g e was t o t h e MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t as a w h o l e , r a t h e r t h a n the a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e s p e c i f i c a l l y , the i s s u e of t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e c o n t r a c t was t o be d e c i d e d b y the a r b i t r a t o r . The t r i a l court then dismissed J o h n s o n ' s a c t i o n a n d o r d e r e d t h a t she a r b i t r a t e h e r claims. " J o h n s o n moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e i t s o r d e r u n d e r R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. I n h e r m o t i o n , J o h n s o n r e a s s e r t e d a n d c l a r i f i e d t h e a r g u m e n t s she h a d made i n h e r b r i e f o p p o s i n g JCRA's m o t i o n t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n , b u t s h e a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have s t a y e d t h e a c t i o n pending a r b i t r a t i o n i n s t e a d of d i s m i s s i n g i t . The trial court denied h e r m o t i o n . J o h n s o n now appeals, arguing that neither t h e MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t nor the a r b i t r a t i o n clause i t s e l f i s v a l i d or e n f o r c e a b l e . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , Johnson argues t h a t , e v e n i f we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e i s v a l i d a n d e n f o r c e a b l e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have stayed, rather than dismissed, her a c t i o n pending t h e outcome o f a r b i t r a t i o n . 3 1100844 " S e c t i o n 8 - 1 - 1 5 0 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, 2 provides: "'(a) A l l c o n t r a c t s founded i n whole or i n p a r t on a g a m b l i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n a r e v o i d . Any p e r s o n who has p a i d any money o r d e l i v e r e d any t h i n g o f v a l u e l o s t upon any game o r wager may r e c o v e r s u c h money, t h i n g , o r i t s v a l u e by an a c t i o n commenced w i t h i n s i x months f r o m t h e t i m e o f s u c h payment o r d e l i v e r y . ' " The relevant portions MegaSweeps O f f i c i a l S w e e p s t a k e s 3 of the 'Quincy's Rules' provide: " ' 1 . No P u r c h a s e N e c e s s a r y t o Win. A p u r c h a s e w i l l not improve the chance of w i n n i n g . V o i d where p r o h i b i t e d by l a w . " ' "'3. R u l e s A r e B i n d i n g . P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e S w e e p s t a k e s c o n s t i t u t e s an e n t r a n t ' s understanding of, and full and u n c o n d i t i o n a l a g r e e m e n t t o and a c c e p t a n c e of, these O f f i c i a l R u l e s . " ' "'8. A r b i t r a t i o n and D i s p u t e s . As a condition of participating in this S w e e p s t a k e s , e n t r a n t a g r e e s t h a t any and all disputes which c a n n o t be resolved b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s , c l a i m s and c a u s e s o f a c t i o n a r i s i n g out of or connected w i t h t h i s S w e e p s t a k e s , o r any p r i z e s a w a r d e d , o r the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of winners s h a l l be resolved i n d i v i d u a l l y , without resort to any f o r m o f c l a s s a c t i o n and e x c l u s i v e l y by arbitration pursuant to the commercial arbitration rules of the American A r b i t r a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , then e f f e c t i v e . F u r t h e r , i n any s u c h d i s p u t e , u n d e r no 4 1100844 c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i l l e n t r a n t be p e r m i t t e d t o obtain awards f o r , and entrant hereby waives a l l r i g h t s to claim[,] p u n i t i v e , incidental or consequential damages, i n c l u d i n g but not l i m i t e d to a t t o r n e y s ' fees, out-of-pocket expenses, costs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e n t e r i n g the Sweepstakes, a n d / o r any other damages, and entrant f u r t h e r w a i v e s a l l r i g h t s t o have damages m u l t i p l i e d or i n c r e a s e d . A l l i s s u e s and questions concerning the construction, v a l i d i t y , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and e n f o r c e a b i l i t y o f t h e s e O f f i c i a l R u l e s , o r t h e r i g h t s and obligations of entrant and Sponsor in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s S w e e p s t a k e s , s h a l l be g o v e r n e d by, and c o n s t r u e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h , the laws of the S t a t e of Alabama, without g i v i n g e f f e c t to the c o n f l i c t of l a w s r u l e s t h e r e o f , and a l l p r o c e e d i n g s s h a l l take p l a c e i n t h a t S t a t e i n the C i t y of Birmingham, County of J e f f e r s o n . ' " J o h n s o n I , 1 So. 3d a t 961-63 ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . This i n J o h n s o n I d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t a v a l i d and enforceable following analysis, this a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t was i n v a l i d MegaSweeps contained a r b i t r a t i o n agreement, r e g a r d l e s s t h e i n v a l i d i t y o f t h e MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t as a w h o l e . upon t h e Court severable Relying Court determined that the from the remainder of the contract: "Johnson argues t h a t JCRA c a n n o t meet i t s i n i t i a l burden of d e m o n s t r a t i n g the e x i s t e n c e of a contract calling for arbitration because, she a r g u e s , 'under t h i s C o u r t ' s u n a n i m o u s d e c i s i o n i n B a r b e r [v. J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y R a c i n g A s s ' n , I n c . , 960 So. 2d 599 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ] , t h e MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t s 5 of 1100844 r e l i e d on by t h e JCRA a r e v o i d ab i n i t i o . ' b r i e f a t 15 ( e m p h a s i s i n t h e o r i g i n a l ) . "Section 8 - 1 - 1 5 0 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, Johnson's provides: " ' A l l c o n t r a c t s founded i n whole or i n p a r t on a g a m b l i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n a r e v o i d . Any p e r s o n who has p a i d any money o r d e l i v e r e d any t h i n g o f v a l u e l o s t upon any game o r wager may r e c o v e r s u c h money, t h i n g , o r i t s v a l u e by an a c t i o n commenced w i t h i n s i x months f r o m t h e t i m e o f s u c h payment o r delivery.' " J o h n s o n c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t i s v o i d u n d e r § 8-1-150 b e c a u s e , she s a y s , t h i s C o u r t i n B a r b e r ' h e l d t h a t , as a m a t t e r o f A l a b a m a l a w , p l a y i n g t h e MegaSweeps i n v o l v e d t h e payment of c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o gamble.' Johnson's b r i e f a t 17. Johnson thus concludes t h a t the a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e i n t h e MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t i s u n e n f o r c e a b l e b e c a u s e , she a r g u e s , u n d e r A l a b a m a law '"when a c o n t r a c t i s u t t e r l y v o i d , i t does n o t have any e x i s t e n c e e v e n f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f one who r e l i e d and a c t e d upon i t w i t h o u t n o t i c e of i t s i n f i r m i t y . " ' Johnson's b r i e f a t 15 ( q u o t i n g M e t r o p o l i t a n L i f e I n s . Co. v. Bramlett, 224 A l a . 473, 475, 140 So. 752, 753 ( 1 9 3 2 ) ) . JCRA, h o w e v e r , a r g u e s t h a t J o h n s o n c a n n o t a v o i d a r b i t r a t i o n by c h a l l e n g i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o r l e g a l i t y o f t h e MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t as a w h o l e , r a t h e r t h a n t h e a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e i t s e l f . JCRA i s correct. " R e c e n t l y , i n P a r a g o n L t d . , I n c . v. B o l e s , 987 So. 2d 561, 567 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , t h i s C o u r t r e j e c t e d an argument s i m i l a r t o t h e one J o h n s o n now makes. I n t h a t case E m i l y Boles sued Paragon a l l e g i n g t h a t P a r a g o n had b r e a c h e d a c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t by f a i l i n g t o c o m p l e t e t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a h o u s e and overcharging B o l e s f o r t h e work i t had c o m p l e t e d . P a r a g o n r e s p o n d e d by a r g u i n g ' t h a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n contract contained a valid and enforceable 6 1100844 a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e , w h i c h r e q u i r e d t h a t any d i s p u t e r e l a t e d t o t h e c o n t r a c t be s e t t l e d by a r b i t r a t i o n . ' 987 So. 2d a t 562. B o l e s a r g u e d i n r e s p o n s e t h a t , 'under § 34-14A-14, A l a . Code 1975, P a r a g o n [ c o u l d ] n o t m a i n t a i n an a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e any p r o v i s i o n o f the c o n t r a c t , i n c l u d i n g the arbitration clause, b e c a u s e ... P a r a g o n a d m i t t e d [ t o t h e A l a b a m a Home B u i l d e r s L i c e n s u r e B o a r d ] t h a t i t had e n g a g e d i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of B o l e s ' s r e s i d e n c e w i t h o u t h o l d i n g a r e q u i r e d l i c e n s e . ' P a r a g o n , 987 So. 2d a t 567. "This Court f i r s t noted i n Paragon t h a t B o l e s ' s a r g u m e n t , l i k e J o h n s o n ' s argument i n t h e c a s e now b e f o r e us, ' c l e a r l y a t t a c k s Paragon's a b i l i t y to enforce the contract as a w h o l e and does not s p e c i f i c a l l y a t t a c k the a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e w i t h i n t h e c o n t r a c t . ' 987 So. 2d a t 567. T h i s C o u r t a l s o stated that '[i]t is well established that c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e c o n t r a c t as a w h o l e and n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t h e a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e w i t h i n t h e c o n t r a c t must go t o t h e a r b i t r a t o r , n o t a c o u r t . ' P a r a g o n , 987 So. 2d a t 567; see a l s o P r i m a P a i n t C o r p . v. F l o o d & C o n k l i n Mfg. Co., 38 8 U.S. 395, 403-04, 87 S. C t . 1801, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1270 (1967) ( ' A c c o r d i n g l y , i f t h e c l a i m i s f r a u d i n t h e i n d u c e m e n t o f t h e a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e i t s e l f -- an i s s u e w h i c h goes t o t h e " m a k i n g " o f t h e a g r e e m e n t t o arbitrate -the f e d e r a l c o u r t may proceed to a d j u d i c a t e i t . But t h e s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e does n o t p e r m i t the f e d e r a l c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r c l a i m s of f r a u d in the inducement of the contract generally.' ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) ) . R e l y i n g on t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n i n B u c k e y e Check C a s h i n g , I n c . v. C a r d e g n a , [546 U.S. 440 ( 2 0 0 6 ) , ] t h e same d e c i s i o n r e l i e d on by t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e r e , t h i s C o u r t i n P a r a g o n c o n c l u d e d t h a t 'the arbitration c l a u s e i n t h e c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n P a r a g o n and B o l e s i s e n f o r c e a b l e , and i t i s i r r e l e v a n t w h e t h e r P a r a g o n ' s a c t i o n s r e n d e r t h e c o n t r a c t as a w h o l e v o i d . T h a t q u e s t i o n i s f o r the a r b i t r a t o r t o d e c i d e , not t h i s C o u r t . ' P a r a g o n , 987 So. 2d a t 568; see a l s o B u c k e y e Check C a s h i n g , I n c . v. C a r d e g n a , 546 U.S. a t 445-46, 7 1100844 126 S. C t . 1204 ('Prima P a i n t a n d S o u t h l a n d [ C o r p . v. K e a t i n g , 465 U.S. 1 (1984)] ... e s t a b l i s h [ e d ] three propositions. First, as a matter of s u b s t a n t i v e f e d e r a l a r b i t r a t i o n l a w , an a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n i s severable from t h e remainder o f t h e c o n t r a c t . Second, u n l e s s t h e c h a l l e n g e i s t o t h e arbitration clause itself, the issue of the c o n t r a c t ' s v a l i d i t y i s c o n s i d e r e d by the a r b i t r a t o r i n the f i r s t i n s t a n c e . T h i r d , t h i s a r b i t r a t i o n law a p p l i e s i n s t a t e as w e l l as f e d e r a l c o u r t s . ' ) . We c o n c l u d e d Paragon by s t a t i n g t h a t 'the a r b i t r a t i o n clause i s enforceable e v e n i f t h e c o n t r a c t as a w h o l e i s l a t e r f o u n d t o be v o i d . ' P a r a g o n , 987 So. 2d a t 568-69. "The c a s e b e f o r e us i s c l o s e l y a n a l o g o u s t o Paragon. Johnson emphasizes t h a t i n t h i s case 'there i s no r e l e v a n t d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o be made as t o t h e validity o f t h e MegaSweeps contracts under § 8-1-150(a) that has n o t a l r e a d y been finally e s t a b l i s h e d as a m a t t e r o f A l a b a m a l a w i n B a r b e r [ v . J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y R a c i n g A s s ' n , I n c . , 960 So. 2d 599 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ] . ' J o h n s o n ' s b r i e f a t 19. She f u r t h e r contends t h a t "'[this] C o u r t e x a m i n e d t h e MegaSweeps i t s e l f and d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , as a m a t t e r o f A l a b a m a l a w , t h e MegaSweeps i t s e l f was i l l e g a l g a m b l i n g a n d , more s p e c i f i c a l l y , that i t i n v o l v e d gambling c o n s i d e r a t i o n . And u n d e r § 8 - 1 - 1 5 0 ( a ) , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f gambling c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s the only issue i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e MegaSweep c o n t r a c t s were v o i d ab i n i t i o . ' " J o h n s o n ' s b r i e f a t 19 ( e m p h a s i s i n t h e o r i g i n a l ) . S i m i l a r l y , however, a t t h e time Paragon a s s e r t e d a r b i t r a t i o n as a d e f e n s e t o l i t i g a t i o n , i t had 'entered i n t o a consent agreement w i t h t h e Alabama Home B u i l d e r s L i c e n s u r e Board i n which Paragon a d m i t t e d t h a t i t had engaged i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f Boles's residence without holding a required 8 1100844 l i c e n s e . ' P a r a g o n , 987 So. 2d a t 567. Thus, t h e s o l e q u e s t i o n u n d e r § 34-14A-14 as t o w h e t h e r P a r a g o n c o u l d ' b r i n g o r m a i n t a i n any a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f any c o n t r a c t f o r r e s i d e n t i a l home b u i l d i n g w h i c h he o r she e n t e r e d i n t o ' was a l r e a d y a n s w e r e d -P a r a g o n d i d n o t have t h e 'license r e q u i r e d . ' N e v e r t h e l e s s , we h e l d i n P a r a g o n t h a t a r b i t r a t i o n was r e q u i r e d . A p p l y i n g o u r d e c i s i o n i n P a r a g o n t o t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t , l i k e the c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t i n Paragon, 'the arbitration c l a u s e i n the [MegaSweeps] c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n [JCRA] and [ J o h n s o n ] i s e n f o r c e a b l e , and i t i s i r r e l e v a n t whether [JCRA]'s a c t i o n s render the c o n t r a c t as a w h o l e v o i d . T h a t q u e s t i o n i s f o r t h e a r b i t r a t o r t o d e c i d e , n o t t h i s C o u r t . ' P a r a g o n , 987 So. 2d a t 568. T h e r e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r in determining that a contract calling for arbitration exists." J o h n s o n I , 1 So. 3d a t 963-66 ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . then concluded This Court that " [ t ] h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d not e r r i n c o m p e l l i n g Johnson t o a r b i t r a t e her c l a i m s ; however, i t d i d exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n when i t d e c l i n e d t o s t a y Johnson's action pending the outcome of the a r b i t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . T h e r e f o r e , we a f f i r m the t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r i n s o f a r as i t c o m p e l s J o h n s o n t o a r b i t r a t e h e r c l a i m a g a i n s t JCRA b u t r e v e r s e i t i n s o f a r as i t d i s m i s s e s J o h n s o n ' s a c t i o n , and we remand t h e c a s e f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r an o r d e r s t a y i n g t h i s a c t i o n p e n d i n g t h e outcome o f t h e a r b i t r a t i o n proceedings." 1 So. 3d a t I 970. dissented in part in Johnson reasons: 9 I, for the following 1100844 "In § 8-1-150(a), Ala. Code 1975, the L e g i s l a t u r e has c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e d t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a on g a m b l i n g : ' A l l c o n t r a c t s founded i n whole or i n part on a gambling c o n s i d e r a t i o n a r e v o i d . ' The l a n g u a g e c o u l d h a r d l y be more e x p l i c i t . The s t a t u t e d e c l a r e s t h a t ' [ a ] l l c o n t r a c t s , ' n o t j u s t some, a r e ' v o i d , ' n o t v o i d a b l e , i f those c o n t r a c t s are founded ' i n whole or i n p a r t on a g a m b l i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n . ' "The J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y R a c i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . ('JCRA'), argues t h a t when a c u s t o m e r buys a c y b e r t i m e c a r d t o engage i n t h e MegaSweeps a c t i v i t y , t h a t c u s t o m e r e n t e r s i n t o a c o n t r a c t w i t h JCRA. The back side of the card states: ' A l l rules and regulations are a v a i l a b l e at Quincy's Cashier l o c a t i o n s , ' and 'Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s p r o g r a m i s y o u r a c c e p t a n c e and agreement w i t h t h e s e r u l e s . ' R u l e 8 o f t h o s e r u l e s i s an a r b i t r a t i o n clause. However, t h e c u s t o m e r does n o t r e c e i v e o r see t h i s c a r d u n t i l a f t e r he has p u r c h a s e d i t and has t h e r e b y entered into t h i s alleged contract. "Even i f a c o n t r a c t i s f o r m e d b e t w e e n JCRA and t h e c u s t o m e r , and even i f t h a t c o n t r a c t does i n c l u d e t h e p o s t e d r u l e s -- i n c l u d i n g t h e a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e -- t h a t c o n t r a c t i s , a c c o r d i n g t o § 8 - 1 - 1 5 0 ( a ) , ' v o i d . ' I f , as JCRA i n s i s t s , t h e a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e is part of that (void) contract, then the a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e i s j u s t as v o i d as t h e r e s t o f the c o n t r a c t . As d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m a voidable contract, a void contract i s the same as a n o n e x i s t e n t c o n t r a c t . Mason v. A c c e p t a n c e Loan Co., 850 So. 2d 289, 295 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . JCRA i n s i s t s t h a t t h e a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e i n t h e c o n t r a c t c o n f e r s upon the a r b i t r a t o r the a u t h o r i t y t o d e c i d e t h i s d i s p u t e . B u t a v o i d o r n o n e x i s t e n t c o n t r a c t c a n n o t c o n f e r any a u t h o r i t y upon anyone. "JCRA r e l i e s upon B u c k e y e Check C a s h i n g , I n c . v. C a r d e g n a , 546 U.S. 440, 126 S. C t . 1204, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1038 (2006), f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n that an 10 1100844 a r b i t r a t o r , n o t a c o u r t , must d e c i d e a c h a l l e n g e t o the validity and enforcement of a contract c o n t a i n i n g an a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e . B u c k e y e Check C a s h i n g i n v o l v e d an a l l e g e d l y i l l e g a l p a y d a y l o a n , but the i l l e g a l i t y of the l o a n , i n c l u d i n g the r a t e o f i n t e r e s t a c t u a l l y c h a r g e d , was the disputed i s s u e . T h e r e i s no d i s p u t e i n t h i s c a s e as t o t h e i l l e g a l i t y o f t h e MegaSweeps scheme. O n l y two y e a r s ago, in Barber v. Jefferson County Racing A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . , 960 So. 2d 599 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , t h i s Court clearly and unanimously held that the MegaSweeps scheme c o n s t i t u t e s i l l e g a l g a m b l i n g . The i l l e g a l i t y o f t h e MegaSweeps scheme i s t h e r e f o r e n o t an i s s u e on t h e t a b l e f o r e i t h e r an a r b i t r a t o r o r a t r i a l court to decide. "The m a i n o p i n i o n c o n t e n d s t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e C o u r t i n B a r b e r h e l d t h a t t h e MegaSweeps scheme i s an i l l e g a l g a m b l i n g o p e r a t i o n , i t d i d n o t a d d r e s s t h e e f f e c t o f t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n upon t h e l e g a l i t y o r v o i d n e s s o f a MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t . T h i s i s a d i s t i n c t i o n w i t h no s i g n i f i c a n c e . The C o u r t n e e d n o t specifically declare a gambling contract void, b e c a u s e t h e L e g i s l a t u r e has a l r e a d y done s o . S e c t i o n 8-1-150(a) i s c l e a r : ' A l l c o n t r a c t s f o u n d e d i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t on a g a m b l i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n a r e v o i d . ' The l o g i c i s s i m p l e and u n m i s t a k a b l e : A l l g a m b l i n g contracts are void; MegaSweeps contracts are g a m b l i n g c o n t r a c t s ; t h e r e f o r e , MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t s are v o i d . "JCRA c o n t e n d s t h a t e v e n i f t h e c o n t r a c t t o p u r c h a s e a MegaSweeps c a r d i s a v o i d c o n t r a c t , t h e a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e i s n o n e t h e l e s s s e v e r a b l e from the r e s t o f t h e c o n t r a c t . JCRA's p o s i t i o n i s i n t e r n a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t : I t has s t r e n u o u s l y a r g u e d t h a t t h e p o s t e d r u l e s a r e p a r t o f t h e MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t , b u t i t now w a n t s t h i s C o u r t t o h o l d t h a t some o f t h e r u l e s , but not a l l of the r u l e s , are p a r t of the c o n t r a c t . But § 8-1-150(a) i s e x p l i c i t on this p o i n t . I t d e c l a r e s t h a t ' [ a ] l l c o n t r a c t s founded i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t on a g a m b l i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n a r e 11 1100844 void. ' (Emphasis added.) Had the Legislature i n t e n d e d t h a t some p r o v i s i o n s o f t h o s e c o n t r a c t s n o t be v o i d , i t c o u l d have s a i d so i n c l e a r t e r m s , b u t i t s l a n g u a g e i s a l l - e n c o m p a s s i n g and u n m i s t a k a b l e . And s u b s e c t i o n (a) c o n t i n u e s : "'Any p e r s o n who has p a i d any money o r d e l i v e r e d any t h i n g o f v a l u e l o s t upon any game o r wager may recover s u c h money, t h i n g , o r i t s v a l u e by an a c t i o n commenced w i t h i n s i x months f r o m t h e t i m e o f s u c h payment o r d e l i v e r y . ' "§ 8-1-150(a) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . The L e g i s l a t u r e has c l e a r l y provided t h a t t h e c u s t o m e r ' s remedy f o r l o s s e s i n an i l l e g a l g a m b l i n g a c t i v i t y i s an a c t i o n i n c o u r t , n o t a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i d e d by a c l a u s e i n a c o n t r a c t t h a t i s v o i d ab i n i t i o . " N e v e r t h e l e s s , the main o p i n i o n i n s i s t s t h a t the U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t n o t e d i n B u c k e y e Check Cashing that 'unless the challenge i s to the arbitration clause itself, the issue of the c o n t r a c t ' s v a l i d i t y i s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e a r b i t r a t o r i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e . ' 546 U.S. a t 445-46, 126 S. C t . 1204. However, B u c k e y e Check C a s h i n g d i d n o t e x t e n d t o a f a c t s i t u a t i o n l i k e t h e one h e r e . I n determining what kinds of contracts must be s u b m i t t e d t o a r b i t r a t i o n , t h e Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t ' [ t ] h e r e can be no d o u b t t h a t " c o n t r a c t " as u s e d t h i s l a s t t i m e [ r e f e r r i n g t o i t s use i n P r i m a P a i n t C o r p . v. F l o o d & C o n k l i n Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 412-13 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , ] must i n c l u d e c o n t r a c t s that l a t e r p r o v e t o be v o i d . ' B u c k e y e Check C a s h i n g , 546 U.S. a t 448, 126 S. C t . 1204. In t h i s case, the MegaSweeps c o n t r a c t has a l r e a d y b e e n p r o v e n v o i d by t h e l e g i s l a t i v e d e c l a r a t i o n f o l l o w e d by t h e j u d i c i a l determination. I t h e r e f o r e b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s case can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m B u c k e y e Check C a s h i n g . "Finally, I note t h a t the posted MegaSweeps Official Sweepstakes Rules 12 Quincy's declare 1100844 t h e m s e l v e s t o be ' [ v ] o i d where p r o h i b i t e d by law.' This d e c l a r a t i o n i s found at the b e g i n n i n g of the r u l e s i n P a r a g r a p h 1 and a p p e a r s t o a p p l y t o t h e e n t i r e r u l e s . Paragraph 2 provides that '[t]he Sweepstakes i s s u b j e c t to a l l f e d e r a l , s t a t e and local laws and regulations, including without l i m i t a t i o n A l a . Code § 8-19D-1 e t s e q . and A l a . A t t y . Gen. Ops. 1999-28 and 2005-173.' The rules c o n t a i n no s e v e r a b i l i t y c l a u s e o r any o t h e r l a n g u a g e that would suggest that the void-where-prohibited-by-law provision applies to a n y t h i n g l e s s t h a n t h e e n t i r e s e t o f r u l e s . I f , as JCRA i n s i s t s , t h e r u l e s a r e p a r t o f t h e c o n t r a c t , t h e n by o p e r a t i o n of the r u l e s themselves, the a r b i t r a t i o n clause i s void. " B e c a u s e I b e l i e v e t h a t a v o i d and illegal c o n t r a c t c a n n o t c o n f e r a u t h o r i t y upon an a r b i t r a t o r , and b e c a u s e I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e -¬ a ' c o n t r a c t ' c o n s i s t i n g of a c a r d the customer receives only a f t e r paying for i t , a contract that a l l e g e d l y incorporates r u l e s that declare themselves ' [ v ] o i d where p r o h i b i t e d by l a w , ' and a s t a t u t e t h a t not o n l y d e c l a r e s such c o n t r a c t s v o i d but also p r o v i d e s t h a t an a c t i o n i n c o u r t i s t h e c u s t o m e r ' s remedy -- p r e s e n t a s i t u a t i o n n o t c o n t e m p l a t e d i n B u c k e y e Check C a s h i n g , I d i s s e n t as t o t h a t h o l d i n g of the m a j o r i t y . " J o h n s o n I , 1 So. 3d a t 970-72 (Parker, J., dissenting). Upon remand, J o h n s o n ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t to arbitration before a panel A s s o c i a t i o n a r b i t r a t o r s ("the the a r b i t r a t i o n agreement. entry of a final c i r c u i t court. The award, of JCRA was American submitted Arbitration a r b i t r a t i o n panel") pursuant to Following Johnson the a r b i t r a t i o n p a n e l ' s appealed the c i r c u i t court then entered 13 award to the the a r b i t r a t i o n 1100844 panel's f i n a l Johnson's a w a r d as t h e c i r c u i t court's f i n a l j u d g m e n t on claim. P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d R u l e 7 1 B ( f ) , Ala. R. C i v . P., Johnson 1 vacate the c i r c u i t circuit filed c o u r t ' s judgment. c o u r t d e n i e d Johnson's f i l e d a timely appeal to t h i s For I, a motion to alter, amend, o r On M a r c h 8, 2 0 1 1 , t h e postjudgment motion. Johnson Court. t h e same r e a s o n s e x p r e s s e d i n my d i s s e n t i n J o h n s o n I d i s s e n t from t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m the c i r c u i t court's judgment entering as a r b i t r a t i o n p a n e l ' s f i n a l award. i t s final judgment the I m a i n t a i n my p o s i t i o n that the a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e MegaSweeps is void 1 pursuant R u l e 71B(f) to § § 8-1-150(a), A l a . Code contract 1975. states: "The c l e r k o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t p r o m p t l y s h a l l e n t e r the [ a r b i t r a t i o n ] a w a r d as t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t o f t h e c o u r t . T h e r e a f t e r , as a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t t o f u r t h e r r e v i e w b y any a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , any p a r t y o p p o s e d t o t h e a w a r d may f i l e , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 59, a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t b a s e d upon one o r more o f t h e g r o u n d s s p e c i f i e d i n A l a . Code 1975, § 6-6-14, o r o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e l a w . The c o u r t s h a l l n o t g r a n t any s u c h motion u n t i l a reasonable time a f t e r a l l p a r t i e s are s e r v e d p u r s u a n t t o p a r a g r a p h (e) o f t h i s r u l e . The d i s p o s i t i o n o f any s u c h m o t i o n i s s u b j e c t t o c i v i l and appellate rules applicable to orders and judgments i n c i v i l a c t i o n s . " 14 See 1100844 Joshua R. Welsh, Comment, Has the Federal A r b i t r a t i o n A c t Gone Too F a r ? : E n f o r c i n g A r b i t r a t i o n Clauses i n V o i d Ab I n i t i o C o n t r a c t s , 86 Marq. L. Rev. 5 8 1 , 610 (2002). 15 Expansion of

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.