ORDERS:
ORDER DENYING STAY
This matter comes before me upon a Motion to Stay the effect of this Court's Final Order
and Decision in the above-captioned matter pending judicial review, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann.
§ 1-23-380(A)(2) (Supp. 1997) and ALJD Rule 29(D), filed by Respondent A&E Distribution,
Inc. At the motion hearing, Respondent Fountain of Luck, Inc. joined in the motion. South
Carolina Department of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as "DOR") opposes the stay motion.
Pursuant to Rule 29(D), ALJD Rules of Procedure, an administrative law judge has the authority
to stay the effect of a final order shich is subject to judicial review. A stay does not, however,
alter the time for filing a petiton for judicial review. At any time prior to the filng of a petition
for judicial review, a party may move this court to stay a final order upon appropriate terms.
This Court's Final Order and Decision in the above-captioned matter was filed December 31,
1997. To date, no petition for appeal to circuit court has been filed; however, Respondents
inform the court that they intend to appeal and that the time for appeal has not yet expired.
In the Final Order and Decision in this video poker violation case filed December 31,
1997, retail operator Fountain of Luck, Inc. was found to have violated R. 117-190 and Section
12-21-2804. The ten machine licenses were revoked, the operation of machines were prohibited
in the subject game rooms for a period of six months, and a fine of $5,000 is imposed upon
Fountain of Luck, Inc. Respondent A&E Distribution, Inc. was fined $2,500 for a violation of
Section 12-21-2748.
In the absence of a stay, Respondents claim that they will suffer irreparable harm through
loss of revenue. Respondents also point to the potential for the South Carolina Supreme Court to
decide material and novel issues in the case of Gateway Enterprises, Inc. v. DOR which may
have an impact upon one or several issues in the present case.
DOR asserts that the effect of the Final Order and Decision inthis matter does not
prevent the machine owers from relicincning the machines and placing them in another location,
nor does it prevent the retail operator from using the business premises for any purpose other
than operation of Class III video game machines. Additionally, DOR maintains that the issuance
of a stay would thwart its efforts to regulate the video gaming industry and enforce the gambling
laws of this State.
Generrally, final
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
December 31, 1997
Columbia, South Carolina |