What are the Gambling and Lottery Laws

Useful Rulings on Gambling and Lotteries Laws

Recent Rulings on Gambling and Lotteries Laws

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC. VS TOMMY NGO, ET AL.

The lifetime exclusion request provides that unredeemed jackpots or prizes would be forfeited by any casino or participating gambling facility for deposit into the Gambling Addiction Program Fund for Problem Gambling prevention and treatment services through the Office of Public Gambling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARK MACARRO VS. ALEX PADILLA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The initiative, entitled the California Sports Wagering Regulation and Unlawful Gambling Enforcement Act, would legalize sports wagering at tribal casinos and existing horse racetracks.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge

    James P. Arguelies

  • County

    Sacramento County, CA

CDM CORPORATION, A NEVADA CORPORATION VS VITALIZE HAIR SYSTEM, ET AL.

California Commerce Club, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 229, 235 [plaintiff alleged that gambling establishment cheated during card games, causing players to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars].) As long as there is a definite sum involved, however, “it is not necessary that each coin or bill be earmarked.” (Weiss v. Marcus (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 590, 599, citing Haigler v. Donnelly (1941) 18 Cal.2d 674, 681.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEANNIE HUA VS ANTHONY VU NGUYEN, ET AL.

Moreover, Defendant notes that the allegations of gambling have disappeared. Defendant these inconsistencies render the SAC a sham pleading. The Court disagrees. The case of Owens v. Kings Supermarket (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 379, illustrates the circumstances under which the Court of Appeal has found the pleadings to be substantially altered, and thus, sham.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CALNEV PARTNERS LLC VS. RESIGHINI RANCHERIA

The prior judgment, upon which both were based, was secured by distributions from the California state Gaming Commission pursuant to the California Indian Compacts, which provide for distributions from a Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF) to "nongaming tribes." Resighini is a designated nongaming tribe. Pursuant to the Promissory Note and Security Agreement, Defendant was obligated to pay quarterly 15 percent of all monies it received through the RSTF distributions.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

YCS INVESTMENTS, INC. VS THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

California Gambling Control Com. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1307-1308, citing Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1402.) “When summary judgment is appropriate, the court should decree only that plaintiffs are not entitled to the declarations in their favor.” (Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1402.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2020

PINNACLE CASINO, LLC VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF GAMBLING CONTROL

In essence, the Bureau's June 30, 2016, letter outlined five requirements that must be met in order for gambling establishments to offer games featuring a rotating player-dealer position that comply with Penal Code section 330.11. The letter also stated, "The Bureau will not approve any other game modifications, new game approvals, or gaming activities until further notice."

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

PINNACLE CASINO, LLC VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF GAMBLING CONTROL

In essence, the Bureau’s June 30, 2016, letter outlined five requirements that must be met in order for gambling establishments to offer games featuring a rotating player-dealer position that comply with Penal Code section 330.11. The letter also stated, “The Bureau will not approve any other game modifications, new game approvals, or gaming activities until further notice.”

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

ZHENG V. ZHENG

As to Deposition Question No. 6, the court finds this question is relevant because it may lead to admissible evidence regarding the source of the funds used for gambling. Therefore, the court GRANTS Defendants’ and Cross-Complainants’ (Gene Zheng and May Zheng (Moving Parties)) Motion for Order Compelling Further Testimony, or in the Alternative, to Preclude All Testimony as directed against Cross-Defendant Jack Zheng, filed on 9-23-19 under ROA No. 312, in part and DENIED in part as discussed above.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

CALLAYE JO STRAUSS VS. CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION

BACKGROUND In 2016 Petitioner Callaye Strauss applied to Respondent Caiifomia Gambling Control Commission ("Commission") for a "key employee license" to work in a gambling facility. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Commission denied her application. The denial was based on the fact that Strauss had answered "No" to a question on the application that asked, "Have you ever been a party to any litigation or arbitration?" Strauss's answer was not accurate.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

CALLAYE JO STRAUSS VS. CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION

BACKGROUND In 2016 Petitioner Callaye Strauss applied to Respondent California Gambling Control Commission (“Commission”) for a “key employee license” to work in a gambling facility. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Commission denied her application. The denial was based on the fact that Strauss had answered “No” to a question on the application that asked, “Have you ever been a party to any litigation or arbitration?” Strauss’s answer was not accurate.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

GARDEN CITY, INC. V. ERIC SWALLOW, ET AL.

In his position with GCI, Swallow was required to hold certain gaming licenses. On May 2, 2014, the Bureau of Gambling Control (“Bureau”) issued an “Accusation” against Swallow, GCI and the Lunardis. The Accusation alleged that Swallow committed acts that would result in revocation of his gaming license and that would prevent him from owning the shares. The Lunardis settled with the Bureau but Swallow proceeded to trial.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

RINCON BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS OF THE RINCON RESERVATION CALIFORNIA VS FLYNT [E-FILE]

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians decision, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 to delineate the roles of tribes, the federal government, and state governments in regulating Indian gaming. D. Cal.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. PONG MARKETING AND

Similarly, at all relevant times, Penal Code §330b(a) similarly made illegal the manufacturing, selling or leasing of such gambling devices, or the entering into of any agreements concerning them.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

RINCON BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS OF THE RINCON RESERVATION CALIFORNIA VS FLYNT [E-FILE]

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians decision, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 to delineate the roles of tribes, the federal government, and state governments in regulating Indian gaming. D. Cal.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ERIK A HENNINGS VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC ET AL

California Gambling Control Com., 154 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1308 (2007). “A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action…. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of … or an issue of duty. CCP § 473c(f)(1). “A summary adjudication motion is subject to the same rules and procedures as a summary judgment motion.” Case v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 30 Cal.App.5th 397, 401 (2018), quoting Lunardi v. Great-W.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

KHURANA VS. CITIMORTGAGE

Respondent argued, and the trial court agreed, that appellant is “gaming the system.” The game is over. (Gillies v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 907, 909.) Whether one views plaintiffs’ refusal to submit an updated application for a loan modification under the rubric of waiver, estoppel, or the original HBOR violation no longer being a “material” violation, defendant is entitled to summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ two HBOR causes of action. C. The Third Cause of Action.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

RYAN KAUFMAN VS APEEL TECHNOLOGY INC

California Gambling Control Com., 154 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1308 (2007). 4. Objections to Evidence: Allergan objects to evidence plaintiff has submitted in opposition to the motion. Some of these objections are to the manner in which they are stated in plaintiff’s separate statement, not to the evidence itself. a.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

CARP PROPERTY, LLC, V. EFRAIN CORONA, ET AL.

California Gambling Control Com., supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at 1308. “[T]he separate statement effectively concedes the materiality of whatever facts are included. Thus, if a triable issue is raised as to any of the facts in your separate statement, the motion must be denied!” (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252 (2009), quoting Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2009) § 10:95.1, p. 10-35.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC. VS TOMMY NGO, ET AL.

and remitted by the Gambling Establishment or participating gambling facility for deposit into the Gambling Addiction Program Fund for problem gambling prevention and treatment services through the Department of Alcohol and Drug Program, Office of Problem and Pathological Gambling.”

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

EDUARDO RAMIREZ VS GLOVA LINK CORPORATION ET AL

TENTATIVE RULINGS ON PLAINTIFF’S IN LIMINE MOTIONS Plaintiff’s No. 2 – Motion To exclude Evidence of Gambling or Tax Returns Allow use of tax returns redacted to exclude all evidence of income other than plaintiff’s earnings from driving. Other income sources are not relevant. Mention of gambling is irrelevant and prejudicial. Plaintiff’s No. 4 – Motion to exclude Expert Opinion of Fatzinger Hearing required. No Opposition was filed.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

CABALLERO V. CUELLER

The gamblers sued the tribal police chief, the tribal gaming office inspector and the casino’s general manager in their individual capacities for violating the plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and under state tort law for battery, false imprisonment, conversion, defamation, trespass to chattels and negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

PARK V. LUNARDI, ET AL.

In 2014, the Bureau of Gambling Control (“Bureau”) began prosecuting an accusation against Garden City, Swallow and the Lunardis. (See SAC, ¶ 21.) The Bureau entered into stipulated settlement with Garden City and the Lunardis; however, it did not settle the accusation with Swallow. (Id.) Ultimately, the California Gambling Control Commission (“Commission”) revoked Swallow’s license to own Garden City, thereby requiring him to sell his shares in Garden City. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

SOMERA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC VS TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

California Gambling Control Com., 154 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1308 (2007). “[T]he separate statement effectively concedes the materiality of whatever facts are included. Thus, if a triable issue is raised as to any of the facts in your separate statement, the motion must be denied!” (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252 (2009), quoting Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2009) § 10:95.1, p. 10-35.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

CORRALES VS THE CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION

The Motion for Intervention brought by Marie Diane Aranda, Rosalie Ann Russell, Christopher Jason Russell, Lisa Fontanilla, Michael Mendibles, and the California Valley Miwok Tribe is GRANTED. (ROA 27.) Proposed individual intervenors assert they are members of the Tribe pursuant to the Washburn Determination. Plaintiff asserts proposed interve...

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.