I’m still trying to figure out what it all means … who the plaintiffs are, and what they’re seeking. The best I can tell on first skim is that an LA attorney is representing himself, and seeking injunctive relief in an attempt to prevent Californians from gambling across state lines — i.e. James B. Hicks wants the site shut down.
This may or may not be connected to proposed legislation in California to allow players to gamble online within state lines.
UPDATE: Looks like this likely is a nuisance shakedowny kinda case … though personally I’m still suspicious that the proposed California intrastate online gambling bill might have something to do with it. From the Pokerati legal advisory team’s Cali branch:
This is really an attorney driven case under a California law called the â€œUnfair Competition Lawâ€ (UCL) that basically says, in part, that if any party is committing an act that is â€œunlawfulâ€ (i.e., violates a statute), that party can be enjoined from those unlawful acts andâ€¦..must pay the plaintiffâ€™s attorneys fees. In other words, there probably is no harm to the plaintiff, but that may be irrelevant. This is really just a vehicle to get some attorneys fees paid.