## Facts

- American International Gaming Association, Inc. (AIGA) applied for a Louisiana riverboat gaming license; Alvin C. Copeland was AIGA’s sole shareholder.
- The Riverboat Gaming Enforcement Division (Division), acting under the Louisiana Riverboat Economic Development and Gaming Control Act, did not award the license sought by AIGA.
- A license for the relevant location was issued to Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C., which intervened to protect its license.
- Copeland and AIGA sued the Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Commission (Commission), the Division, and others, asserting constitutional, tort, and regulatory challenges tied to (1) the failure to award AIGA a license and (2) the issuance and validity of Treasure Chest’s license.
- The district court sustained multiple exceptions (including no cause of action, no right of action, prescription, and jurisdictional objections) and dismissed most claims; Copeland appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an unsuccessful applicant (and its shareholder) has a constitutionally protected property interest in obtaining a discretionary riverboat gaming license sufficient to support procedural due-process claims.
2. Whether Copeland, as a shareholder, had a right of action to assert claims based on alleged injury to the corporation or to collaterally attack a competitor’s issued license.
3. Whether the trial court properly sustained the defendants’ exceptions and dismissed the claims, and whether any portion of the petition should be amendable.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
- It affirmed dismissal of most claims against the Commission, the Division, and Treasure Chest.
- It held Copeland lacked a protected property interest in a gaming license his corporation did not receive, defeating due-process theories premised on entitlement to the license.
- It agreed that many claims were improperly asserted by Copeland individually because they were derivative of alleged injury to AIGA.
- It vacated limited portions of the judgment and remanded to allow a narrowly circumscribed amendment of the petition as to certain potentially curable claims.

## Legal Principles

- A constitutionally protected property interest requires a legitimate claim of entitlement; a mere application for a discretionary, statutorily limited gaming license does not create such an entitlement.
- Where a licensing statute vests broad discretion in the licensing authority and treats licensure as a restricted privilege, unsuccessful applicants generally cannot base procedural due-process claims on denial of the license.
- Shareholders ordinarily lack a personal right of action to recover for injuries suffered by the corporation; claims must be brought by the corporation absent a distinct individual injury or legally recognized exception.
- Courts may permit amendment when defects in pleading may be cured, but dismissal is proper when asserted theories fail as a matter of law or when the plaintiff lacks a right of action.

## Conclusion

The court largely upheld dismissal of Copeland’s suit because neither he nor his corporation had a due-process property interest in a discretionary riverboat gaming license and because many claims were improperly brought by a shareholder or constituted defective attacks on a competitor’s license; only a narrow opportunity to amend limited claims was preserved on remand.


Am. Gaming Ass’n, Inc. v. La. Riverboat Gaming Comm’n, 838 So. 2d 5 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002)