Appeals court upholds decision dismissing Waterside developer’s casino lawsuit against Norfolk
Norfolk prevailed in court against a developer that alleged it should have had first right to develop a casino in the city and sought damages over the city’s casino plans with the Pamunkey Indian Tribe.
The Court of Appeals of Virginia this week upheld a lower court decision dismissing a $100 million lawsuit that Cordish Companies, the developer of Waterside District, brought against Norfolk, Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority and City Attorney Bernard Pishko.
Cordish Companies, a Baltimore-based developer, revamped Waterside in 2013. But when Norfolk leaders began to have conversations about bringing a casino to the city, Cordish-owned LLC Norfolk District Associates argued it should have had the exclusive right to develop and operate one based on its Waterside development agreement and lease.
In 2019, Norfolk approved a land deal with the Pamunkey Indian Tribe that set the stage for development of the HeadWaters Resort and Casino next to Harbor Park — less than a mile from Waterside. Those plans are still ongoing.
Norfolk District Associates sued in 2021 alleging the city breached its contract and actively sought to exclude Waterside from being the site of a casino. The case was based on definitions of a 2013 lease agreement between city leaders and the Waterside developers about the potential support and rights of the development to be home of a future casino.
The case was dismissed by a Richmond Circuit Court judge in 2022, but Cordish and its lawyers appealed.
In a 12-page ruling issued Tuesday, the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the lower court decision, finding the written agreement over Waterside “does not place an obligation on the City and NRHA to use NDA to develop a casino.”
“All of NDA’s assignments of error, and the underlying claims, turn on the premise that the City and NRHA breached enforceable contractual obligations owed to NDA under the lease agreement,” wrote Judge Richard Y. AtLee on behalf of the three-judge panel. “Because we find that section 10.2.1 was an unenforceable agreement to agree and a casino was not a permitted use under the terms of the agreement, we find that the circuit court did not err in sustaining the demurrers.”
Cordish did not respond to a request for comment.
“We are pleased to have the Court confirm that Cordish and [John] Lynch sued the city, city attorney and NRHA without a basis,” Pishko said in a statement.
The appeal was first heard in July Judges AtLee, Doris Henderson Causey and James W. Haley, Jr. The ruling was released Tuesday after another round of oral arguments were heard in December.
This second round was agreed upon by the lawyers after one of the judges who heard the first appeal [cq comment=”in the case ” ]had to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest.
The judges who heard the new round of oral arguments in December and made the ruling were AtLee, Haley and Dominique A. Callins, according to court documents, indicating Causey was the judge who recused. Requests to speak with Causey about the reason for the recusal were denied by Court of Appeals staff.
Ian Munro, 757-447-4097, ian.munro@virginiamedia.com
