Plaintiff loses 3:2 BJ lawsuit
vs Wynn (Encore) Boston Harbor
"With the advice of counsel, they now contend that they are entitled to 3:2, not 6:5, payouts, because the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's (commission's) blackjack rules, particularly rule 7(d), do not clearly authorize payouts of 6:5 except with games played by dealing rules different from those used at the plaintiffs' tables.
Unfortunately, rule 7(d) is at least somewhat ambiguous.
In response to the plaintiffs' claims, the commission has consistently interpreted rule 7(d) to authorize the 6:5 payout option at issue."
dont understand the legal briefing.
why are they mentioning 2 lawsuits?
in one, a judge denied Encore's motion to dismiss.
In another, some other judge affirmed MGM's motion to dismiss.
(Encore and MGM are competitors)
near the end of the brief, the judge is mentioning both Encore and MGM:
"Therefore, we conclude that Encore's and MGM's layouts complied with rule 7(d)'s notification requirement that "this variation's rules must be displayed on the layout in plain sight."[27]"
but if MGM got their case dismissed, why are they being mentioned in the ruling?
so confused
Quote: 100xOddshttps://socialaw.com/services/slip-opinions/slip-opinion-details/ted-decosmo-1-vs.-blue-tarp-redevelopment-llc.-2-a.-richard-schuster-3-another-4-vs.-wynn-resorts-holdings-llc-others.-5-6
vs Wynn (Encore) Boston Harbor
"With the advice of counsel, they now contend that they are entitled to 3:2, not 6:5, payouts, because the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's (commission's) blackjack rules, particularly rule 7(d), do not clearly authorize payouts of 6:5 except with games played by dealing rules different from those used at the plaintiffs' tables.
Unfortunately, rule 7(d) is at least somewhat ambiguous.
In response to the plaintiffs' claims, the commission has consistently interpreted rule 7(d) to authorize the 6:5 payout option at issue."
dont understand the legal briefing.
why are they mentioning 2 lawsuits?
in one, a judge denied Encore's motion to dismiss.
In another, some other judge affirmed MGM's motion to dismiss.
(Encore and MGM are competitors)
near the end of the brief, the judge is mentioning both Encore and MGM:
"Therefore, we conclude that Encore's and MGM's layouts complied with rule 7(d)'s notification requirement that "this variation's rules must be displayed on the layout in plain sight."[27]"
but if MGM got their case dismissed, why are they being mentioned in the ruling?
so confused
It's clear to me (I have had six years of reading these documents in my own lawsuit. I am used to the legalese by now)
1) two separate lawsuit's were launched by different people. One was against MGM only. The other was against both Encore and MGM. (Plaintiffs allowed to lodge complaint only against Casinos they actually played in as they are claiming monetary damage by not being paid properly. One plaintiff only played MGM Springfield so left Encore out of suit).
2) The individual lawsuit against MGM solely was dismissed in lower court as no merit.
3). The similar suit involving both Casinos was not dismissed. This was a matter of interpretation by different judges.
4)!At heart of the different interpretation is rule 7(D) gaming regulations which are ambiguous. It's one of those situations in the English language where the interpretation can be read either way due to poor wording. Whoever phrased it thought it was clear to him but that has now been lost to posterity. As noted above, even two judges interpreted the rule different.
5). The case not denied went to the higher court and involved both MGM and Encore
6) Even the higher court found the rule ambiguous.
7) The higher court found the gaming commission sided with the Casinos in interpretation.
8) Finding the interpretation ambiguous, and finding the gaming commission has authority over gaming matters as invested by the state of Massachusetts, the court sided with the Defendants (Casinos) solely on the gaming commission authority.
9) In other words, someone had to definitively interpret the meaning of this ambiguous rule. The higher court judges demured to the gaming commission based on their mandate from the state.
Had the rule been unambiguous in wording and it was definitively prohibited to use 6:5, the plaintiff would have prevailed.
