Source: https://www.bjrnet.com/member/archive/DougGrantVSGreateBayCasino.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 01:10:20+00:00

Document:
COUNSEL: HOWARD A. ALTSCHULER, ESQ., Haworth, New Jersey, for Plaintiffs.
than Trump Casino Defendants) and Griffin Investigations.
and Quinne, Dunne, Daily and Higgins, P.A., Defendants.
Jersey, for Meranze & Katz, Defendant.
P.C., Trenton, New Jersey, for Caplan & Luber, Lloyd S. Markind, Richard L.
Caplan, Sharon Morgan and Michele Davis, Defendants.
JUDGES: JOSEPH E. IRENAS, U.S.D.J.
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
determined at trial." Compl. at 83, 86.
that follow, we will grant the defendants' motions to dismiss under Fed. R.
student lists, stalking and other intimidation tactics. Doug Grant, Inc.
plaintiffs are not skilled card-counters. Compl. at P 65.
thirteen cards (Ace, King, Queen, Jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2).
supervisor and inspects them in the presence of the floorperson. Id.
intermixed," and then placed into a stack. Id. 19:47-2.4(c); id.
"at least approximately" one-quarter of the way from the back of the stack.
inserted into the dealing shoe for commencement of play. Id. 19:47-2.5(d).
The cards behind the cutting card will not be used during the game. n3 Id.
since more time-consuming shuffles will be needed. See infra at 7.
dealer. The player-favorable cards are the Ace, King, Queen, Jack and Ten.
dealer-favorable cards, the dealer's chances of winning are increased.
strategies under fast-paced casino conditions." Compl. at P 133.1.
on a shoe with a remainder of mostly player-favorable cards is eliminated.
play and the smaller the profits.
game so that the dealers can take certain countermeasures against them.
Plaintiffs challenge these practices as violations of the "cheating games"
card-counters for purposes of knowing when to implement countermeasures.
cards and shuffling during a player-favorable count.
allegedly connected to the casinos.
"shills" is specifically prohibited by the Casino Control Act (the "Act").
are authorized, but not required, to provide patrons pursuant to N.J.S.A.
Int'l Hotel, Inc., 89 N.J. 163, 169, 445 A.2d 370 (1982) (citing N.J.S.A.
5:12-70f and 100e); see also Campione v. Adamar of N.J., 302 N.J. Super.
those games." Id. at 166.
A.2d 42. The jury awarded Campione $1,519,873.43. Campione, 302 N.J. Super.
disparate treatment of card-counters. Id. at 110.
extensive than the entire administrative regulation of many industries."
N.J.R. 559-69 (June 7, 1982); 14 N.J.R. 841 (Aug. 2, 1982); 23 N.J.R.
to ensure the casinos' financial viability.
occurred in response to the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling in Uston v.
opportunity to play. This language was deleted in 1991. See 23 N.J.R.
1784(a) (June 3, 1991); 23 N.J.R. 2869(b) (Sept. 16, 1991).
by the casinos for that purpose.
approve the offending casino's Section 99 controls.
N.J.R. 1784 (June 3, 1991).
within the remaining decks contained in the dealing shoe." N.J.A.C.
14 N.J.R. 841(b) (Aug. 2, 1982).
In lieu of the dealing and shuffling requirements set forth in N.J.A.C.
be able to track in order to determine whether a shoe was player-favorable.
who are at the table.
N.J.A.C. 19:47-8.3(c); see 23 N.J.R. 1784(b) (June 3, 1991); 23 N.J.R.
2613(a) (Sept. 3, 1991); 23 N.J.R. 3350(a) (Nov. 4, 1991); 23 N.J.R.
permissible wager in an authorized game.
wage exceeded the current table maximum.
274 N.J. Super. 63, 79-80, 643 A.2d 42 (Law Div. 1993), rev'd, 302 N.J.
Circuit has subsequently agreed with our view, holding in Hakimoglu v.
complaints, and to hold hearings. N.J.S.A. 5:12-63(b), (f), (g); id.
complainant may appeal the CCC's determination to the Appellate Division.
plaintiffs allege they were associated.
is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
removed the case to this Court.
their Consumer Fraud Act claim.
of the complaint as true. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 40 L. Ed.
2d 90, 94 S. Ct. 1683 (1974). Dismissal of claims under Fed. R. Civ. P.
F.2d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 1988) (emphasis added).
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P.
113 S. Ct. 1160 (1993).
irrelevant contentions of perceived violations of the CCC regulations. Id.
expended. Thus, the Court will plunge into the complaint's "Serbonian Bog"
issue in a clearly drafted complaint of no more than ten to fifteen pages.
n13 John Milton, Paradise Lost, Bk. II, lines 591-94; see also Eugene M.
Cases, 8 FORUM 45 n. 17 (1972).
conspiracy, negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims); Ifert v.
malpractice claims against the Lawyer Defendants.
prohibited by the RICO statute at issue. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1961, 1962.
plaintiffs to one hand of blackjack at a time, and lowering betting limits.
interstate commerce for an unlawful activity.
this Court, have held is legal. See Hyland v. Griffin Investigation, Civ.
act of racketeering because it violates the criminal casino "cheating"
court's Campione holding in our opinion in Hyland. See Hyland, Civ. A. No.
that the cards shall be reshuffled.
N.J.A.C. 19:47-2.5(a), (h) (emphasis added).
to convince us that the CCC has authorized only a "random shuffle-at-will."
to impose on the casinos.
anything, the comments support our view of the shuffle-at-will regulations.
the casino advantage against all types of players would increase.
14 N.J.R. 470 (May 17, 1982).
player to wager on more than one "box" or place at a table. N.J.A.C.
the casinos to have the rules drawn so as to allow some reasonable profit."
"shills" allegation likewise fails to state a predicate act.
"shills" are really complaints about the alleged use of "anti-shills."
one plaintiff was grabbed by the arm while being escorted out of a casino.
associated with the Casino Defendants.
loss, and not mere 'injury to a valuable intangible property interest.'"
Corp., 937 F.2d 899, 918-19 (3d Cir. 1991).
eliminate any possible advantage a card-counter might be able to obtain.
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
regulations takes place, courts refuse to find a private cause of action.
such claims would be preempted by the Act), aff'd, 47 F.3d 88 (3d Cir.
because it does not allege a reasonable expectation of economic advantage.
ensure a statistical advantage to the casinos, even against card-counters.
blackjack ignores the economic reality of the New Jersey casino system.
activities does not transform the casinos into state actors. See Uston v.
Hilton Hotels Corp., 448 F. Supp. 116, 118 (D. Nev. 1978); State v.
examined under rational basis test), appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 804, 70 L.
need not be addressed further.
thereto, governed exclusively by the CCC. See N.J.S.A. 5:12-133(b); id.
the CCC has particularized expertise not possessed by courts and juries.
regulation of the casinos precludes an action under the Consumer Fraud Act.
leave to amend the complaint to re-include it.
therefore this claim will be dismissed.
Eighth and Ninth Counts will therefore be remanded to state court.
N.J. Super. 335, 342, 452 A.2d 689 (App. Div. 1982); see Tellado v.
appear to make out a misappropriation claim.
we will dismiss these claims on that ground.
reasonable person" and thereby have not stated a claim for false light.
level of being "highly offensive to a reasonable person."
federal jurisdiction is based, Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725, see 28 U.S.C.
non-card-counting plaintiffs and generally on behalf of all plaintiffs.
Defendant Griffin and John Doe casino employees are named as defendants.
they were published. See Zoneraich v. Overlook Hospital, 212 N.J. Super.
291 N.J. Super. 382, 391, 677 A.2d 772 (App. Div. 1996); see Petrocco v.
of action together in one long and confusing document.
supervision. We find these claims, as stated, to be vague and confusing.
conglomerations of various statutory, tort and contract actions.
Defendants, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and remand these claims to state court.
rather than elucidate the essential nature of the dispute.
(5) identify card counters and share this information with other casinos.
[CCC] regulations governing the manner in which games are played."
819 F. Supp. 1312, 1316 n.8 (D.N.J 1993), aff'd, 34 F.3d 1227 (3d Cir.
Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates, 70 F.3d 291, 293-94 (3d Cir.
regulations, e.g., using "loaded" dice or fixing a roulette wheel.
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss with prejudice pursuant to Fed.
jurisdiction, the remainder of the claims shall be remanded to state court.

References: § 1367
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 § 1961
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 § 1367
 v.