YaleMoto: Backed Off In California

[YaleMoto]

> You are hardly the only licensed California lawyer who
> has been backed off from Indian casinos. If I were to
> guess, I'd say lawyer is the most common profession
> among part-time blackjack players.

I was not aware that there were that many counters who are lawyers. I hardly ever see any counters or even good basic strategy players when I play. Furthermore, I have only been backed off by one Indian Casino after much play. Maybe we should get together and start a counting lawyer bar association/team?

> I have researched this extensively, and the long and
> short of it is -- if you really want to be a pain in
> the side of the tribe or management, go ahead and file
> a suit. I'm sure they would pay you off with more EV
> then you would likely take from their blackjack game.
> But, the odds of success are not good for a number of
> reasons.

I appreciate you sharing your research with me. I think the chance of settlement pay off is good considering the cost of litigation and bad publicity that would be created by the suit. Plus the casino will know that I can aggressively litigate without incurring attorneys' fees. However, I am informed that some casinos may have a no settlement policy. But then again there may be insurance coverage where the carrier controls the settlement decision and not the insured casino.

> The first problem is sovereignty. Even if you sue the
> management company (Harrahs, Stations, etc.) they will
> have an indemnity agreement in place with the tribe.
> That means the whole shabang will get thrown into
> Indian Court. Now, there are some arguments you could
> make about false adevrtising and other creative
> theories that might give you a leg to stand on in the
> court of appeal (and hence, the settlement value of
> your case), but California courts will not be eager to
> get into the business of regulating the tribes.

I was also considering suing multiple defendants, including non-tribe defendants, in multiple suits with possible concurrent jurisdiction in State, Federal, and Indian Court. As you note there are a number of creative tort causes of action that could be alleged in these suits.

> The second problem is IGRA (Indian Gaming Regulatory
> Act) which basically says states have no power to
> regulate Indian Gaming except as provided in the
> compacts. The California compacts -- except for the
> ones recently renegotiated by Ahnold -- are no help.
> They provide for state oversight on financial matters
> (like how much money will go to the state) but are
> silent on consumer relation issues. The newer
> compacts, which Pala and a few other signed, entitle
> you to demand arbitration (which the casino must pay
> for -- another good leverage point for settlement) if
> you feel you have been treated unfairly. The
> arbitration is intended to cover things like slip and
> fall accidents, but should also apply to things like
> being kicked out and defamed.

Have you talked with anyone at the California Department of Justice, Division of Gambling Control re the barring of advantage players?

> Now, regarding your concern that California games will
> turn into New Jersey. Trust me, there is no way you
> will be able to establish a precedent that has any
> serious effect on the casinos. And even if you did,
> the tribes have so much political power that the law
> would soon be changed. In other words, if you want to
> spend your time on a lawsuit, go for it. At the end of
> the day, the odds are stacked against you, but go
> ahead and fight the good fight.

I have never had much interest in suing casinos for barring play because of the New Jersey issue. However, the manner in which I was recently backed off has got me considering it. Interestingly, the response to my proposed suit on this site has been negative - not because of possible game deterioration, but because of the perceived small chance of success.

[Dog Hand]

[bfbagain]

The laws may be different in different parts of the U.S., but the math doesn't change. It is a misnomer that lawsuits filed against casinos are bad for the players. In Nevada, you can actually feel the difference that the Grosjean suits have had, all to the good I might add.

So it is a specious argument to decide to sue or not to sue based on how New Jersey (or any other locale) may respond regarding advantage players and/or play conditions.

In fact, I submit that any and all lawsuits be filed when appropriate. You may want to contact Bob Nersesian in Vegas before proceeding.

cheers
bfb

[Coug Fan]

> I was not aware that there were that many counters who
> are lawyers. I hardly ever see any counters or even
> good basic strategy players when I play. Furthermore,
> I have only been backed off by one Indian Casino after
> much play. Maybe we should get together and start a
> counting lawyer bar association/team?

I think you would have a fundamental problem with this idea. The most important thing for any team is complete and total trust between all team members.