634 F.3d at 1352 n. 18. Accordingly,' Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their vagueness- claim as to this phrase. The Court also agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits on their vagueness challenge regarding the phrase “casino-style games.” See Satz Response at 14-15; Seminole Tribe Response at 8. Although Plaintiffs contend that this phrase is “obscure and perplexing,” Motion at 4, Plaintiffs also concede that the Court may look to a term’s common or ordinary meaning to define it. Id. (citing State v. Nichols, 892 So.2d 1221, 1227 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2005)). The phrase “casino-style games” has a common or ordinary meaning that is known to the general population. See Eckhardt, 466 F.3d at 944 (<HOLDING>). “Casino-style games” refers to the types of
recognizing we must give insurance policy language its ordinary and generally accepted meaning unless the policy shows that the words used are intended to impart a technical or different meaning holding that a statute is not vague where the words themselves  possess a common and generally accepted meaning holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself holding legislatures intent is determined from plain and common meaning of words used recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims