![]() Matloubi had concluded that the raising player had been assisting the winner, against whom Matloubi would not have continued to bet. Holding a pair of jacks, he had bet against raises by a player showing a 10, but had lost the game to another player with two kings, one in the hole. Matloubi declared that on May 29, 1993, he had been the victim of partnering. Another player stated that he had seen marked cards in use at the Asian stud games on 45 to 50 occasions in which he and Vu played at the same table, and on which occasions Vu had lost. One player declared that Mai had sponsored other players to play with Vu, and that on numerous occasions, not necessarily involving Vu, Mai had made hand and voice signals. In response to the motion, plaintiffs offered little direct evidence that they had encountered the alleged cheating in their play at the club, and no such evidence that cheating had been the cause of their losses. With respect to the conversion claims, the club further urged that plaintiffs could not establish that the club converted any specific sums from them. 3 The club argued, inter alia, that plaintiffs could not as a matter of law prove that they had been damaged by the club's alleged misconduct. Plaintiffs subsequently recharacterized the conversion charges as involving the club's retaining of funds confiscated from Pan-Nine games in which the club detected cheating, as well as Mai's alleged coaching of players.Īfter demurrers had been sustained without leave as to certain other causes of action, the club moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs also asserted causes of action for conversion, and conspiracy to convert, against the club and certain employees and players (not parties to this appeal), based on the alleged cheating. Plaintiffs alleged that the club had breached these contractual obligations, and that plaintiffs had thereby suffered their above-described gambling losses through cheating. Plaintiffs' primary theory of liability was that there had existed an implied contract between themselves and the club, entered into by plaintiffs' joining in the games and paying the club's fees, whereby the club impliedly promised to provide adequate security, including investigation of cheating, to insure that the games were honestly played. Third, marked cards occasionally were used in the poker games. Second, defendant Mai, a manager in the Asian stud games, gave vocal and hand signals to players whose play he funded (also to field competitors for other players). These players originally were employed by the club to get games started after that practice ended, some of them returned to play again. First, certain Asian stud players played as "partners," signaling to each other their hole cards and betting accordingly. The cheating that plaintiffs asserted included the following. These losses constitute plaintiffs' claimed damages. Plaintiff Matloubi, a professional poker player, played the two games between May 15 and May 29, 1993, during which he allegedly lost approximately $120,000. During that period, he allegedly lost approximately $1.4 million. Plaintiff Vu played Asian stud and Pan-Nine at the club between July 1991 and July 1993. The club maintains a security network that includes video cameras and individual "spotters." ![]() 1 Betting at the club is only among the players the club provides the facility, cards, chips, and dealers, and receives a fee per hand from each player. The club provides facilities for card games legal in the City of Commerce, including two that plaintiffs played, "Asian stud" poker and "Pan-Nine." fn. ![]() (the club), and Huong Mai, in an action to recover money plaintiffs lost while playing card games at the club, assertedly as a result of cheating. Plaintiffs Tom Vu and Mansour Matloubi appeal from summary judgment in favor of defendants California Commerce Club, Inc. Dunn as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents. Wright for Plaintiffs and Appellants.īird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert & Matz, Joel E. J., and Zebrowski, J., concurring.)įred L. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. TOM VU et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |