Comments on: Full Tilt Sued in California Court over Alleged UIGEA Violations

By: Rick K.

Rick K. — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:26:14 +0000

Full Tilt sent me a bad check and refuses to pay the fees my bank charged me in Feb of 2010

By: Brian G.

Brian G. — Fri, 01 May 2009 22:48:01 +0000

I am an attorney and read the Complaint. Without reading the statutes, my gut instinct is that that the Internet Gaming Act does not give a private right of action, so the attorney had to get it under the California state law likely provides for a private right of action. It really all depends on if he can survive a Motion to Dismiss.

By: DanM

DanM — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:50:06 +0000

It looks like malpractice? yet he cooperated so he can operate under probation?

By: Kevin Mathers

Kevin Mathers — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:21:57 +0000

Just to add this to the record the case where he got his suspension:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57/poker-legislation/california-attorney-sues-ftp-violating-uigea-473439/?highlight=#post10345284

By: DanM

DanM — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:02:11 +0000

More good stuff. I found two things interesting from his bar record you link to:

1) the dude went to yale undergrad and harvard law … so clearly he’s no idiot.

2) he got disciplined just last month, so the possibility that he’s on tilt is strong.

By: Kevin Mathers

Kevin Mathers — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:55:23 +0000

Here’s another strike against the attorney, he recently has come back from being suspended from practicing law for a year:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=109117

By: DanM

DanM — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:20:01 +0000

And here’s a blog all about California’s Unfair Competition Law:

http://www.uclpractitioner.com/

By: DanM

DanM — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:13:43 +0000

Ooh, nice find Mathers. Yeah, it’s all starting to shake down like a low-budget shakedown. The latest from my California attorney friend who supplied the update:

I am totally speculating that it is an attorney driven suit, of course, but the only remedy they seek is equitable relief and fees, so it’s at least a fair inference. Let me clarify a quick point — the UCL does have an “injury in fact” requirement under a new statute (referred to as Proposition 64). That means the plaintiff will ultimately need to prove some injury, namely loss of money or property. That will not be hard to prove if he lost $ on the poker site. But then the plaintiff could be in trouble – the plaintiff is seeking “equitable” relief and a plaintiff who invokes equity must come to the Court with “clean hands.” Basically, you cannot break the law (which the plaintiff alleges happens w/ internet poker) and then sue the poker site (for the same unlawful conduct) and ask the court for equitable relief. Good for the goose/gander sort of thing.

By: Kevin Mathers

Kevin Mathers — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:08:57 +0000

Assuming it’s the same guy, I don’t think FTP’s going to be able to get $500k out of him for filing a frivolous lawsuit:

http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1120786

By: scott diamond

scott diamond — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:49:12 +0000

Obviously a Losing Full Tilt Player, but this is California Courts, I have seen stranger cases!

By: Pauly

Pauly — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:22:10 +0000

Ritzy and kook are one in the same in California.

By: DanM

DanM — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:45:23 +0000

Yeah, but it’s a ritzy address. I don’t know enough about California politics, but I just gotta think it can’t all be happening in a vacuum with pending “controversial” legislation.

Also brings up the game of skill vs. chance thing (which is partly why Tiltware is supposedly in violation of the UIGEA, according to the claims) … but haven’t California courts already ruled poker to be a game of skill?

Another possibility is that this guy is simply trying to shake them down for some cash to make him go away.

By: Kevin Mathers

Kevin Mathers — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:42:25 +0000

Guy sounds like a kook at first glance.