What are the Gambling and Lottery Laws

Useful Rulings on Gambling and Lotteries Laws

Recent Rulings on Gambling and Lotteries Laws

ASTRID G NELSON MEGEL ET AL VS THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

California Gambling Control Com., 154 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1308 (2007). “[A]ny doubts as to the propriety of granting a summary judgment motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion.” Reid v. Google, Inc., 50 Cal.4th 512, 535 (2010). “In ruling on the motion, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” Shin v. Ahn, 42 Cal.4th 482, 499 (2007).

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

TIERNAN VS. DIABLO COMMUNITY S

California Gambling Control Com. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1302 [same].) The undisputed facts here negate the existence of an actual, present dispute or controversy between Cervantes and DCSD, which is essential to Cervantes's right to obtain declaratory relief against DCSD.

  • Hearing

CALNEV PARTNERS LLC VS. RESIGHINI RANCHERIA

First, Plaintiff sought to intercept funds paid by the State of California to Defendant quarterly under the Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510. That motion was denied on the grounds that the plain language of the statute mandates that enforcement can occur only against the debtor directly. In July 2020, Plaintiff filed writs of execution in Sacramento, Tulare, and Fresno Counties.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FILIPPINI WEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC. V. MAX BARIL, ET AL.

California Gambling Control Com., 154 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1308 (2007). “[A]ny doubts as to the propriety of granting a summary judgment motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion.” Reid v. Google, Inc., 50 Cal.4th 512, 535 (2010). “In ruling on the motion, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” Shin v. Ahn, 42 Cal.4th 482, 499 (2007).

  • Hearing

KRIS KAT, LLC VS. CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION

For example, the Form Interrogatories response began, Kris Kat, LLC and its managing member, Steven Ayers (collectively Petitioners), served the California Gambling Control Commission (Commission) with Form Interrogatories. The Commission objects to Petitioners’ Form Interrogatories because they impermissibly seek extra-record evidence in this action in which Petitioners’ remedy is mandamus.

  • Hearing

JOHN PARK V. PETER LUNARDI, ET AL.

Next, Request Nos. 26–29 seek communications with regulatory agencies, namely the California Bureau of Gambling Control, California Gambling Control Commission, William Tongren, and the City of San Jose. The communications requested are those between Greenfield and each of these regulators about the purchase or contemplated purchase of Garden City shares by Park or Lunardi. Finally, Request Nos. 10–11, 13, and 25 appear to seek Greenfield’s work product.

  • Hearing

CHIKE COLLINS OBI VS EL DORADO ENTERPRISES, INC.; ET AL

Plaintiff further alleges that while in the private room, plaintiff started gambling with an initial amount of $15,000. Over a period of eleven hours, plaintiff’s money dwindled to $1,000. By approximately 11:55 p.m. on February 10, 2014 (about 12 hours after his arrival), plaintiff started winning against the dealer. His money grew from $1,000 to $3,000.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NICHOLAS GROSS, ET AL. VS DOE 1

(FAC, ¶ 21.) (9) Plaintiff invested in a live gaming promoter and owns a media production and events company. (FAC, ¶ 22.) Plaintiff’s declaration presents evidence that a few of the offending statements are untrue. He declares that the statements implying that “the company is run by ‘homophobes’ and use slurs like ‘faggot’,” the company is trying to ‘commercialize education,’” and he and his business are “homeless haters,” are not true. (Gross Decl., ¶ 5.)

  • Hearing

PIONEER DISTRIBUTORS INC. VS SONIC GAMES INC.

for goods of similar nature so as to be of merchantable quality for resale in the electronics and gaming industries.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NICHOLAS GROSS, ET AL. VS DOE 1

(Complaint, ¶ 21.) (9) Plaintiff invested in a live gaming promoter and owns a media production and events company. (Complaint, ¶ 22.) Plaintiff’s declaration presents evidence that a few of the offending statements are untrue. He declares that the statements implying that “the company is run by ‘homophobes’ and use slurs like ‘faggot’,” the company is trying to ‘commercialize education,’” and he and his business are “homeless haters,” are not true. (Gross Decl., ¶ 5.)

  • Hearing

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

Similarly, section 12554, subdivision (e) in Title 4 of the California Code of Regulations— governing the administrative hearing process—states: “If a person’s state gambling license for a gambling establishment is revoked by the Commission pursuant to this chapter, the Commission may stay such revocation for a reasonable period of time to allow such person to sell or divest himself or herself of such person’s ownership interest in the gambling establishment, provided that after the date on which the revocation

  • Hearing

DANIELLE M GUARD VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF GAMBLING CONTROL

The same subdivision provides: "The department shall make available to the public the rules of play and the collection rates of each gaming activity approved for play at each gambling establishment on the Attorney General's Web site." (Emphasis added.) Petitioner concedes that she was able to obtain this information does not require the Department to disclose dates of approval. It does not even require the Department to disclose particular approvals.

  • Hearing

KRIS KAT, LLC VS. CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION

Defendants have determined that past behavior due to intoxication disqualifies Plaintiff from owning a gambling establishment in Califomia. Defendants have not barred similarly situated applicants for a license to own a gambling establishment based upon AUD. Defendants have issue licenses for applicants to own and work in controlled gaming that, like Plaintiff, have DUl's and other alcohol related misdemeanor convictions.

  • Hearing

KRIS KAT, LLC VS. CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION

Defendants have determined that past behavior due to intoxication disqualifies Plaintiff from owning a gambling establishment in California. Defendants have not barred similarly situated applicants for a license to own a gambling establishment based upon AUD. Defendants have issue licenses for applicants to own and work in controlled gaming that, like Plaintiff, have DUI’s and other alcohol related misdemeanor convictions.

  • Hearing

HARVEY F SOUZA VS. CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION

CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION, Respondent. Nature of Proceedings: DEMURRER Following is the Court's tentative ruling sustaining the demurrer. INTRODUCTION Three years ago, Petitioner Harvey Souza settled an accusation issued by the Bureau of Gambling Control by agreeing to pay a $2.1 fine, among other things. The settlement agreement was approved and accepted by Respondent Califomia Gambling Control Commission.

  • Hearing

HARVEY F SOUZA VS. CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION

California Gambling Control Commission, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2017-80002549, [“Lucky Chances”] and Swallow v. California Gambling Control Commission, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2016-80002402 [“Swallow”]. The judgments in both cases are currently on appeal. (Id., ¶ 36-37.)

  • Hearing

PURKISS ET AL. V. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

California Fish and Gaming Commission (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 397.) To sustain all of plaintiffs’ objections to the Flores and Arens declarations submitted in support of defendant’s opposition. To grant plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $ 41,385.00. To also award costs and expenses of $ 2,509.98. Payment shall be made by defendant General Motors, LLC, to the Knight Law Group within 30 days of the clerk’s service of this minute order.

  • Hearing

CALNEV PARTNERS LLC VS. RESIGHINI RANCHERIA

Pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (18 U.S.C. § 1166 et seq.; 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.), California has entered into tribal-state gaming compacts ("Compacts") with various tribes in California authorized to operate gambling casinos. (See Govt. Code §§ 12012-25-12012.53.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. PONG MARKETING AND

(“PREPAID”), for their involvement, if any, in the Sweepstakes Gambling System described in the first cause of action (hereafter referred to as the “Sweepstakes Game”)and the New Gambling System described in the third cause of action(hereafter referred to as the “Skill Game”). Both causes of action allege that each gambling system violated Penal Code §§330a and/or 330b, and thus constituted unfair business practices under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”).

  • Hearing

HUNG M. NGUYEN V. CACHE CREEK CASINO RESORT

Though Yocha Dehe partially waived its immunity when it entered into a compact with the State of California to operate Defendant as a gaming facility, that waiver only permits patrons such as Plaintiff to pursue claims against Defendant by notifying Defendant of their injury and participating in a described dispute resolution process, not through suit in state court.

  • Hearing

JOHN PARK V. PETER LUNARDI, ET AL.

Request Nos. 47–50 seek preparatory, transactional documents for the sale of Swallow’s interest, including loan applications submitted to Comerica to finance the transaction, audited or unaudited financial statements submitted to Comerica, and applications submitted to regulatory entities (the California Gambling Control Commission, Bureau of Gambling Control, and City of San Jose).

  • Hearing

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

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CALNEV PARTNERS LLC VS. RESIGHINI RANCHERIA

Relevant to this motion is California's Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF), which serves as a vehicle to collect and distribute money derived from gambling license fees pursuant to state-tribal gaming agreements. The State makes quarterly payments to eligible Indian tribes, of which Defendant is one. Defendant receives $275,000 quarterly and in the past used the quarterly RSTF payment to pay its obligation under the Promissory Note.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

  • 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

  • Judge

    James P. Arguelies

  • County

    Sacramento County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.