Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00249/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00249-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Negotiable Instrument

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 07cv0249 BTM(AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STRATCAP INVESTMENTS, INC., a

Delaware corporation, and RONALD

YORK, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv0249 BTM(AJB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS 

vs.

HARRAH’S OPERATING COMPANY,

INC., a Nevada corporation, and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Defendant Harrah’s Operating Company (“Defendant”) has filed a motion to dismiss

for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed

below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED, and the

motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED AS MOOT. 

I. BACKGROUND

On or about July 10, 2005, Plaintiff Ronald York won Harrah’s “$1,000,000 Winning

Will Find You” game. York watched the drawing at Harrah’s Rincon Casino. 

The $1,000,000 winnings are payable in annual payments of $40,000.00 for 25

successive years. 

On May 11, 2006, York entered into a “Receivable Purchase & Sale Agreement”

Case 3:07-cv-00249-BTM-AJB Document 12 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 07cv0249 BTM(AJB)

(“Agreement”) (Exh. A to Compl.), whereby York agreed to assign to Plaintiff Stratcap

Investments, Inc. (“Stratcap”), eight annual installments of $40,000 (starting with the payment

due on or about July 10, 2007 and continuing through and including the payment due on or

about July 10, 2014) for the purchase price of $183,774.00. 

On February 7, 2007, Plaintiffs filed this action. The Complaint seeks “a declaratory

judgment from the Court that the Receivable Purchase and Sale Agreement is valid and

binding on all parties to this action, that Defendant Harrah’s be ordered to make the Assigned

Payments otherwise due to Plaintiff York, to Stratcap or its assignee, as set for [sic] in the

Receivable Purchase and Sale Agreement.”

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks dismissal on the grounds that (1) the Court lacks personal

jurisdiction over it; and (2) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim. The Court grants Defendant’s

motion on the second ground. 

It is unclear whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant

is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. It

appears that Defendant is the entity that pays out the winnings at issue. However, according

to Defendant, it is not the operator of Harrah’s Rincon Casino and does not conduct any

business in California. (Kostrinsky Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, 6.) Although Plaintiffs failed to make out a

prima facie case of personal jurisdiction, the Court would be inclined to deny the motion to

dismiss without prejudice and allow Plaintiffs to conduct limited discovery regarding the

relationship between the various Harrah’s entities and Defendant’s contacts with this forum.

However, the issue of personal jurisdiction is moot because Plaintiffs have failed to state a

claim.

The “actual controversy” requirement of the Declaratory Judgment Act is the same as

the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution. Aetna

Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 239-40 (1937). Article III requires that there be a

“substantial controversy . . . of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a

Case 3:07-cv-00249-BTM-AJB Document 12 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 07cv0249 BTM(AJB)

declaratory judgment.” Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 272

(1941). 

According to the terms of the Agreement, the closing of the purchase of the winnings

(the “Receivable”) is contingent upon, among other things, “Receipt by Purchaser of written

acknowledgment from the Gaming Authority of the assignment of the Receivable as provided

for herein, including the Gaming Authority’s consent to and agreement to be bound by the

said assignment, in form and content acceptable to Purchaser.” (Agreement, ¶ III.B.) The

Agreement defines “Gaming Authority” as “Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc. or its

successor.” The assignment of winnings is “deemed effective upon closing.” (Agreement,

¶ IV.) 

 Defendant has not given its consent to the assignment, and Plaintiffs do not claim

that Stratcap has waived the contingency. Indeed, in their opposition, Plaintiffs make it clear

that Stratcap has not yet made the $183,774.00 payment and will not do so “unless it is

assured that Harrah’s will honor the transfer agreement.” Therefore, the purchase has not

been consummated, and neither York nor Stratcap can claim harm. 

Plaintiffs’ claim is, in actuality, a request for an advisory opinion regarding whether

Defendant would be required to continue to make payments in the event that the winnings

were assigned. “Our role is neither to issue advisory opinions nor to declare rights in

hypothetical cases, but to adjudicate live cases or controversies consistent with the powers

granted the judiciary in Article III of the Constitution.” Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights

Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief fails to state a claim. Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-00249-BTM-AJB Document 12 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 07cv0249 BTM(AJB)

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state

a claim is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is

DENIED AS MOOT. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall

enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 21, 2007

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00249-BTM-AJB Document 12 Filed 06/21/07 Page 4 of 4