A new development has occurred in the Michael Postle case with the plaintiffs, now some 89 poker players, deciding to revisit the original charges against their discredited fellow player. As per those charges, Postle is facing counts of cheating, unjust enrichment, negligence, and fraud for a whole lot of 11 causes.
The amendment in the original charges brought the number of plaintiffs from mere 25 to 89 people who have a reason to be miffed at Postle. On the other side, there are Mike Postle and Stones Gambling Hall as well as Justin Kuraitis, a tournament direct at Stones.
The Story So Far – Dismissing the Complaint
On April 8, Stones Gambling Hall filed a notice of motion hoping to toss the first complaint out of the way. Stones Gambling Hall is represented by King’s Casino Management Corporation. The motion cleverly exploits a popular legal safe in such matters, that the plaintiffs claim foul play when in reality – the defense says – the plaintiffs’ own bad luck had got the better of them. Hence, Postle couldn’t have cheated – he simply outplayed his opponents, the logic goes.
The Internet has proliferated with careful, naked-eye analyses of Postle’s suspicious and irrational playstyle which, even players beyond the affected group of participants in the live-streamed low-stakes game that Postle took part in, have agreed indicated foul play. Yet, his cheating might have run for years, some have alleged although there is scant evidence without a verdict. Some of the people to rail against Postle include Marle Cordeiro, a poker player herself and an established figure in the poker community.
In their motion, King’s basically lets their lawyers explain very shortly that “gambling-related losses are not cognizable as damages,” putting a legal twist on it, but still not coming close to exonerating Postle from having his reputation sullied.
According to the motion and the defense prepared by lawyers, the claim for “fraud, constructive fraud, and negligent misrepresentation is short of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8 and 9b’s pleading standards”
The defense further claims that plaintiffs have no way of proving negligence nor fraud because they rely on unconfirmed facts. The defense went so far as to call those unconfirmed facts “innuendos” and “insinuations.”
Kuraitis also joined King’s Casino Management’s dismiss motion arguing that some of the plaintiffs, including Veronica Brill and Kasey Lyn Mills, and Marc Goone, had no reason to rely on his, i.e. Kuraitis’ statements, to arrive at the conclusion that Postle had cheated. Cordeiro is also among the plaintiffs who is determined to see the case through.
A pretrial scheduling has been set up for July 20, but this may now be postponed depending on how long the coronavirus pandemic stretches.
Are Stones Gambling Hall Saying They Owe Nothing to Gamblers?
One thing that stands out in Stones Gambling Hall defense is what the team of lawyers have thought would hold up in court: “Casinos do not owe a general duty of care to gamblers.” In other words, the very people who frequent a venue to play poker competitively aren’t owed a thing, and this is true in principle.
Poker players are a competitive lot who fully understand that skill alone would determine the outcome. While Stones may not have a legal obligation to make amendments, solving the case in players’ favor would have been the honorable thing to do. As of now, Stones Gambling Hall is putting its good name and track record at risk.
By the same token, it might just so happen that the poker community doesn’t owe one particular casino a thing.
