during the pendency of the appeal because of ongoing violations of their federal constitutional rights and due to a probable decline in the efficiency of Union operations. Plaintiffs concede that the latter injury is likely to be temporary and to cease after a "period of transition." Memorandum in Support of Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal at 7-8.
This court concluded above that plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail in their appeal based on the First Amendment. In effect, the court found that Local 54 is not suffering harm to its constitutional rights. For the same reasons, the court holds such harm is unlikely during the pendency of the appeal.
In the course of its review of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, the court conducted an extensive inquiry into the issue of irreparable harm. Counsel had the opportunity to question Frank Gerace and Frank Materio on the possibility of harm to the Union. The court has also considered detailed submissions and arguments of the parties on this issue in connection with both motions for injunctive relief. According to the evidence before the court, the Union will suffer some damage to its functional capacity pending the outcome of its appeal, but such damage is likely to be modest.
Accordingly, the court holds that irreparable injury is unlikely to accrue to the moving parties if the court denies the requested injunction pending appeal.
III. Public Interest
As the court stated in its opinion of November 5, 1984, "in this case, the questions of potential harm to 'other interested parties' and to the public interest amount to the same inquiry." Opinion at 1450.
Plaintiffs assert that further delay in the enforcement of the Commission's disqualification and removal orders will not be harmful to the public. In making this motion however, Local 54 has presented the court with no grounds to alter its contrary conclusions expressed in its opinion of November 5, 1984. These proceedings have provided ample opportunity for the court to consider conditions in the New Jersey casino gambling industry and the regulatory scheme established by the New Jersey Casino Control Act. See, e.g., Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union Local 54 v. Danzinger, 536 F. Supp. 317, 321-24 (D.N.J. 1982). The court remains convinced that "postponed enforcement of the Commission's orders has a serious negative effect on public faith in effective regulation of the casino industry." Opinion of November 5, 1984 at 1450. An injunction pending appeal would have a detrimental impact on the effectiveness of such regulation and on the stability of the casino industry itself. Opinion of November 5, 1984 at 35-36.
For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs' motion for an injunction pending appeal will be denied. The court will enter an appropriate order.
ORDER DENYING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PENDING APPEAL
This matter having come before the court on the motion of plaintiffs for injunctive relief pending appeal, Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c); and
The court having considered the motion, the briefs, the record, and the argument of counsel; and
For the reasons stated in the court's opinion filed this date,
It is on this 26th day of November, 1984, hereby ORDERED that the motion of plaintiffs for injunctive relief pending appeal is DENIED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c).