He took the District to court challenging the way it awarded a lucrative mobile sports betting deal, but ultimately lost.
Now Dylan Carragher, of D.C., is hoping for the D.C. Court of Appeals to take up the case.
鈥淢r. Carragher is bringing this case as a D.C. tax payer, and he is saying that this is wrong — literally on behalf of all taxpayers,鈥� said Carragher鈥檚 attorney, Donald Temple.
Carragher accused city and its leaders of violating the federal 鈥淗ome Rule Act鈥� when they voted to award a no-bid contract worth $215 million to the Greek firm Intralot. Carragher also sought an injunction to stop payments to the city until his case was decided.
Carragher is the designer of a mobile sports betting app, and believes the exclusive deal kept companies such as his from getting a chance to be involved in D.C.鈥檚 emerging sports betting scene.
After getting a preliminary injunction, a second D.C. Superior Court Judge, John Campbell, ruled the city didn鈥檛 break the law, which lifted the motion. Campbell dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
In earlier court filings in the case, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine鈥檚 office has argued that the D.C. Council has 鈥渂road legislative authority鈥� under the Home Rule Act.
Campbell wrote 鈥渢he D.C. council complied with the Exemption Act when it awarded the gaming and lottery contract to Intralot.鈥�
The act, according to Campbell, was lawful to enact. Carragher disagrees.
On Thursday, Temple filed a combined appeal that covers both the appeal of the preliminary injunction decision and the dismissal of his lawsuit.
鈥淚鈥檓 optimistic that the court is going to give it the due consideration and certainly a higher level of scrutiny,鈥� Temple said.
Temple said as the fight continues, he said he feels a lack of preliminary injunction could cost D.C. tax payers dearly.
鈥淚f the court rules that they鈥檙e [the lower court] wrong — that they鈥檙e ignoring what we think is the law — then the city is spending money that it won鈥檛 be able to recoup from the illegal contract.”
Temple argues that not overturning this case sets a dangerous precedent for future contracts.
The city has maintained that it has followed the law throughout the process.
Read more on the details of the case:
- In DC’s rush to legalize sports betting, are the benefits overstated?
- Judge lifts hurdle to mobile sports betting in DC
- Complaint poses fresh challenge to DC sports betting
- Restraining order holds up sports betting app in DC
- DC faces another legal challenge to sports betting
