In the Matter of the Arbitration Between State of Arizona and Pascua Yaqui Tribe
In the Matter of the Hearing of an Appeal by James M. Burns
In the Office of Administrative Hearings
Case No. 07F-013-GAM
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
In 2007, Mr. Petti represented James M. Burns, then the CFO for the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Casino. The Arizona Department of Gaming issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Mr. Burns’ renewal application for state gaming certification, alleging that Mr. Burns’ involvement with placing bets with a bookie made him unsuitable to hold gaming certification in Arizona. Mr. Petti represented Mr. Burns in a two day hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, and at the end of the hearing the judge found that Mr. Burns was suitable for state gaming certification and recommended that his state gaming license be issued without restriction.
State of Arizona v. Thomas Eggleston, et al.
Arizona Court of Appeals
Case No. 1 CA-SA 05-0022
In 2006, Mr. Petti represented a Glendale City Councilman, Thomas Eggleston, in connection with charges brought by the Maricopa County Attorney alleging that Mr. Eggleston had improperly backdated certain campaign disclosure forms. Mr. Petti was able to get the case dismissed at the trial court level on the grounds that the County Attorney improperly elicited attorney-client privileged information from the Glendale City Attorney and misled the grand jury regarding the true facts of the alleged offense. The dismissal was later upheld by the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Jeremy E. Simms v. Napolitano, et al.
Arizona Court of Appeals
Case No. 1 CA-CV 02-0281
In 2001, Mr. Petti was hired by the Arizona Department of Gaming to represent the Department in connection with its decision to deny state gaming certification to Jeremy Sims, the owner of Turf Paradise Racetrack. Prior to the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge, Mr. Simms filed suit in Maricopa County Superior Court asserting that he had the right to withdraw his application for state gaming certification, thereby making the Department of Gaming’s decision to deny his request for state certification moot. Mr. Petti successfully persuaded the Court of Appeals to find that the Department of Gaming had police powers and therefore was entitled to deny an applicant’s request to withdraw his application once the Department had made a finding that the applicant was not suitable to receive state gaming certification.