AK Tournament Play, Inc. v. Town of Wallkill
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Quirk v. Katz (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)
- Walker v. Capra (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
- Boykin v. Westchester County Jail (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
- Broecker v. New York City Department of Education (District Court, E.D. New York 2023)
- Garland v. New York City Fire Department (District Court, E.D. New York 2023)
- Dubose v. Jiminez (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
- Craig v. The City of New York (District Court, E.D. New York 2022)
- Washington v. Fitzpatrick (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- Gomez v. Francis DelGrosso (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)
- McKeefry v. Town of Bedford (District Court, S.D. New York 2019)
- Bertuglia v. City of New York (District Court, S.D. New York 2012)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiffs-appellants AK Tournament Play, Inc., and A1 Otto (“plaintiffs”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See AK Tournament Play, Inc. v. Town of Wallkill, No. 09 Civ. 10579(LAP), 2011 WL 197216 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.19, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
We review a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss de novo. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). “In conducting this review, we draw all reasonable inferences in [pjlaintiffs’ favor, assume all well-pleaded factual allegations to be true, and determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. We are not, however, bound to accept conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions.” Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2011) *477 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in refusing to afford their poker games some level of First Amendment protection. Plaintiffs’ games of “tournament style Texas Hold-Em Poker,” they contend, amount to “a form of protected expression” and protected assembly.
At least on the record before us, we cannot agree. Even assuming arguendo that there might be some circumstances under which a poker club’s activities could involve sufficiently expressive or political content to merit protection under the First Amendment, plaintiffs’ conclusory and vague complaint fails to set out facts from which a court could draw that conclusion here. Plaintiffs allege no more than that they engaged in social gambling. Such activities, even if not violative of state law, are subject to regulation without the heightened scrutiny applied to governmental action affecting First Amendment-protected speech or assembly. Accordingly, the district court was correct to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim.
We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.