IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

POM of Pennsylvania, LLC, :

Petitioner :

: No. 503 M.D. 2018

v. :

: Argued: May 8, 2019

Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of :

Liquor Control Enforcement, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge1

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: November 20, 2019

Before this Court is the Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor 

Control Enforcement’s (PSP) application for summary relief in the nature of a partial 

judgment on the pleadings with respect to the PSP’s counterclaim to the petition for 

review in the nature of a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive 

relief, filed in this Court’s original jurisdiction by POM of Pennsylvania, LLC (POM). 

This case is a companion to, and is controlled by our disposition in, POM of 

 

1 This matter was assigned to this panel before September 1, 2019, when Judge Simpson 

assumed the status of senior judge.
2

Pennsylvania, LLC v. Department of Revenue, and City of Philadelphia (Pa. Cmwlth., 

No. 418 M.D. 2018, filed November 20, 2019) (POM I).

On July 20, 2018, POM filed in this Court’s original jurisdiction a petition 

for review seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, naming as respondent 

the PSP. According to POM’s petition for review, POM distributes software for “a 

skill-based video game machine, called the Pennsylvania SkillTM Amusement Device 

402.49 PEN” (POM Game) throughout Pennsylvania. (Petition ¶1.) The POM Game 

is primarily located in taverns, restaurants and social clubs that serve alcohol under 

license from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. (Petition ¶11.) The POM Game 

is a coin-operated video machine that offers several games including a tic-tac-toe style 

puzzle, a potentially unlockable bonus session, and a “Follow MeTM colored dotmatching second phase of game play.” (Petition ¶¶12-13.) If a player is ultimately 

successful playing the POM Game he or she is awarded with a combined total of 105% 

of the original amount spent to play. (Petition ¶27.) POM asserts that the POM Game 

is not an illegal gambling device under Pennsylvania criminal law, but rather, that it is 

a legal game of skill. (Petition ¶28.)

POM avers that on December 21, 2017, and January 4, 2018, the PSP sent 

letters to certain liquor licensees in the Commonwealth in which it threatened criminal 

and/or administrative sanctions against any liquor licensee in possession of a skill 

game. (Petition ¶29.) POM also alleges that high-ranking PSP officials have advised 

various persons throughout the Commonwealth, including customers and potential 

customers in public forums, that all skill games are illegal. (Petition ¶30.) POM further 

asserts that the PSP has advised legislators that games of skill, including the POM 

Game, are illegal. (Petition ¶31.) Moreover, POM alleges that in the months prior to 

its filing the petition for review, PSP agents visited users of the POM Game and 

threatened to seize their POM Games and suspend or revoke their Liquor Control 

Board-issued liquor licenses. (Petition ¶32.) POM avers that on July 11, 2018, PSP 
3

seized five POM Games, as well as currency and other property, from a location in 

Fairless Hills, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. (Petition ¶33.)

POM maintains that the POM Game is not an illegal game of chance under 

the relevant statute of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code governing illegal gambling 

devices. (Petition ¶¶35-36.) POM also alleges that in In re Pace-O-Matic, Inc. 

Equipment, Terminal I.D. No. 142613 (C.P. Beaver, No. M.D. 965-2013, filed 

December 23, 2014), the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County determined that a 

similar POM game was a game in which skill predominated and, thus, not a gambling 

device per se under Pennsylvania law.2, 3 (Petition ¶45.) Consequently, POM requests 

that this Court enter a declaratory judgment in its favor and (1) declare that the POM 

Game is a legal device under Pennsylvania law; (2) declare that the PSP lacks the power 

and authority to seize or threaten to seize POM Games or initiate administrative or 

criminal proceedings regarding POM Games; (3) permanently enjoin the PSP from 

seizing or threatening to seize POM Games and/or initiating administrative or criminal 

proceedings regarding POM Games; and (4) grant any other relief deemed appropriate. 

 

2

In Pace-O-Matic, agents of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement seized 

coin-operated video devices from a social club. Id., slip op. at 1-2. Like the POM Game at issue, the 

devices contained tic-tac-toe style puzzles that were played for money and offered rewards and dotmatching bonus games. Id., slip op. at 2-4. The court of common pleas concluded that a machine is 

a gambling device per se where three elements are present: (1) consideration; (2) a result determined 

by chance, instead of skill; and (3) a reward. Id., slip op. at 5. Because the court of common pleas 

determined that the outcome of both the tic-tac-toe and bonus games was determined predominantly 

by skill, rather than chance, it held that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the seized devices 

were gambling devices per se. Id., slip op. at 10-12.

3 Additionally, POM alleges that after the Beaver County decision, the District Attorney for 

Centre County issued a letter stating that, in light of the decision, her office would not confiscate 

POM machines. Similarly, POM avers that the District Attorney for Lancaster County issued a letter 

stating that for the reasons set forth in the Beaver County decision, the POM machine was not 

considered a game of chance under Pennsylvania gaming laws. (Petition ¶46.)
4

(Petition ¶62.) POM also requests that we enter a preliminary injunction enjoining the 

PSP from (1) seizing or threatening to seize POM Games; (2) initiating administrative 

or criminal proceedings regarding the POM Game; and (3) arresting or prosecuting 

persons in connection with operation of the POM Game. Id. 

The PSP filed an answer, new matter, and counterclaim in response to 

POM’s petition for review. In its counterclaim, the PSP alleges that the POM Game is 

considered a slot machine under section 1103 of the Pennsylvania Race Horse 

Development and Gaming Act (Gaming Act), 4 Pa.C.S. §1103. (Counterclaim ¶18.) 

The PSP also avers that the POM Game has not been inspected or certified by the 

Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (Gaming Control Board) and that POM has been 

acting in violation of the Gaming Act.4 (Counterclaim ¶¶20-21.) The PSP also 

maintains that POM is a manufacturer of slot machines under section 1103 of the 

Gaming Act, 4 Pa.C.S. §1103, and that it has violated the Gaming Act by 

manufacturing slot machines without a manufacturer’s license. (Counterclaim ¶¶25-

27, 29-30.) Similarly, the PSP contends that POM is a supplier of slot machines under 

the Gaming Act and that POM has violated the Gaming Act by distributing slot 

machines without a supplier license. (Counterclaim ¶¶37-40, 42.) 

The PSP seeks a declaration that (1) the Gaming Act regulates the 

manufacture, possession, and operation of slot machines; (2) the Gaming Act and its 

regulations prohibit any person from possessing a slot machine unless lawfully 

manufactured by a licensed manufacturer; (3) the Gaming Act prohibits the possession 

and operation of any slot machines unless on the premises of a licensed casino facility; 

(4) the POM Game is an illegal gambling device under the Gaming Act; (5) the POM 

Game is a slot machine under the Gaming Act and subject to a daily tax of 34% of its 

revenue; and (6) POM is a manufacturer and/or supplier of slot machines and is 

 

4

4 Pa.C.S. §§1101-1904.
5

required to obtain a license from the Gaming Control Board. (Counterclaim ¶49.) The 

PSP also requests that POM be ordered to remove its machines from all Pennsylvania 

establishments and cease further sale and distribution of its machines within 

Pennsylvania unless and until POM obtains the proper licenses from the Gaming 

Control Board. (Counterclaim ¶50.) While the PSP repeatedly argues that the POM 

Games are subject to the Gaming Act and the authority of the Gaming Control Board, 

the Gaming Control Board has not sought to intervene in this matter.

POM filed a reply to the PSP’s new matter and counterclaim. Thereafter, 

the PSP filed an application for summary relief in the nature of a motion for partial 

judgment on the pleadings with respect to its counterclaim. 

The PSP raises the following issues in its application for summary relief 

in the nature of a motion for judgment on the pleadings:5 (1) The POM Game is a slot 

machine under the Gaming Act; (2) POM is a manufacturer and/or a supplier of slot 

machines under the Gaming Act; and (3) POM is acting in violation of the Gaming 

Act.

The arguments advanced by the PSP and POM in this matter are identical 

to those set forth and disposed of by this Court in POM I. In that case, we concluded 

 

5 Rule 1532(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, which is titled “Summary 

relief,” provides that “[a]t any time after the filing of a petition for review in an appellate or original 

jurisdiction matter the court may on application enter judgment if the right of the applicant thereto is 

clear.” Pa.R.A.P. 1532(b). “A motion for judgment on the pleadings is in the nature of a demurrer”; 

thus, “all of the opposing party’s allegations are viewed as true and only those facts which have been 

specifically admitted by him may be considered against him.” Trib Total Media, Inc. v. Highlands 

School District, 3 A.3d 695, 698 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). 

In reviewing a motion for judgment on the pleadings we “may only consider the pleadings 

themselves and any documents properly attached thereto.” Id. The motion should only be granted 

“when the pleadings show there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. Further, “the party moving for judgment on the pleadings must 

admit the truth of all the allegations of his adversary and the untruth of any of his own allegations that 

have been denied by the opposing party.” Pfister v. City of Philadelphia, 963 A.2d 593, 597 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2009). Where “material issues of fact are in dispute, judgment on the pleadings cannot be 

entered.” Id. 
6

that because the plain language of the Gaming Act indicates that the General Assembly 

did not intend for the Act to regulate unlicensed slot machines and/or supplant the 

Crimes Code’s regulation of the same, the POM Game is not subject to the Gaming 

Act. Accordingly, for the reasons articulated in POM I, we deny the PSP’s application 

for summary relief in the nature of a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. 

However, for the same reasons discussed in POM I, our denial of the PSP’s application 

does not decide the separate question of whether the POM Game is an illegal gambling 

device under the Crimes Code, which both parties appear to acknowledge requires 

discovery in order to resolve.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

Judge Cohn Jubelirer dissents.

Judge Brobson did not participate in this decision.

Judge Covey concurs in the result only.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

POM of Pennsylvania, LLC, :

Petitioner :

: No. 503 M.D. 2018

v. :

:

Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of :

Liquor Control Enforcement, :

Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2019, the Pennsylvania State 

Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement’s (PSP) application for summary 

relief in the nature of a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, with respect to 

the PSP’s counterclaim, is denied.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge