SUIT OF THE WEEK: GAMBLER LOSES THE BIG ONE-A RICO LAWSUIT.A compulsive gambler cannot sue the casino that took his money under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Dec. 5. "Because we find his RICO RICO n. . claims to be frivolous and alleged solely to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts, we vacate To annul, set aside, or render void; to surrender possession or occupancy. The term vacate has two common usages in the law. With respect to real property, to vacate the premises means to give up possession of the property and leave the area totally devoid of contents. the district court's judgment and dismiss his lawsuit for want of subject-matter jurisdiction In civil procedure, the subject-matter jurisdiction of a court determines the kinds of claims or disputes over which it has jurisdiction, or the power to render a decision. ," Judge Ann Claire Williams wrote for the three-judge panel in David M. Williams v. Aztar Indiana Gaming Co. d/b/a Casino Aztar (03-1822). Williams had already lost in the lower court, although not as badly; it had granted summary judgment to the casino instead of throwing out the lawsuit altogether. David Williams, a former auditor with the Indiana Department of Revenue, began gambling in 1996 at Casino Aztar, a riverboat casino on the Ohio River in Evansville, IN. When his gambling habits appeared to get out of control, his girlfriend persuaded Aztar's Responsible Gaming Committee to talk to him. He checked into a mental health facility, and Aztar sent him a "Cease Admissions" letter in 1998 saying he couldn't come back without "medical /psychological information" showing his patronage "poses no threat to your safety and/or well-being." Between the time his girlfriend contacted Aztar and the mailing of the letter, he had lost another $160,000. In 1999, however, he returned to the casino, was admitted and gambled away another $15,000 to $20,000 before he was barred. Meanwhile, the casino was mailing him promotional materials. Although Indiana law allows individuals to add themselves to a casino's eviction The removal of a tenant from possession of premises in which he or she resides or has a property interest done by a landlord either by reentry upon the premises or through a court action. list, he never invoked it. David Williams sued, filing a number of state-law claims and alleging a RICO violation. He cited the "Cease Admissions" letter and subsequent promotional mailings as "predicate In programming, a statement that evaluates an expression and provides a true or false answer based on the condition of the data. acts" of mail fraud. The Seventh Circuit said that claim was frivolous, so federal courts had no business hearing the case. "The viability of Williams's RICO claim turns on whether he has established a pattern of racketeering Traditionally, obtaining or extorting money illegally or carrying on illegal business activities, usually by Organized Crime . A pattern of illegal activity carried out as part of an enterprise that is owned or controlled by those who are engaged in the illegal activity. activity, which is an essential element of a claim under the RICO statute," Judge Williams wrote. The "Cease Admissions" letter "in no way constitutes a misrepresentation misrepresentation In law, any false or misleading expression of fact, usually with the intent to deceive or defraud. It most commonly occurs in insurance and real-estate contracts. False advertising may also constitute misrepresentation. , much less one on which Williams could rely," he said. "As for the promotional mailings, even if the statements in these communications could be considered 'false' or 'misrepresentations,' it is clear they are nothing more than sales puffery puff·er·y n. Flattering, often exaggerated praise and publicity, especially when used for promotional purposes. Noun 1. puffery - a flattering commendation (especially when used for promotional purposes) on which no person of ordinary prudence and comprehension could rely." To top if off, the appellate panel found not only that the initial RICO claim was frivolous but that the appeal was frivolous, and gave the gambler 14 days to show cause why he shouldn't face sanctions. |
|
||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion