Party Gaming has filed a motion to dismiss a complaint against it in the Kentucky internet gambling case. According to court documents obtained by Poker News Daily, Party Gaming argues that “insufficiency of service of process, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and lack of standing” warrant the complaint against the gambling behemoth being dismissed.
Kentucky attorneys are seeking to recoup funds lost by state residents on the virtual felts of several major internet gambling sites. The case was originally filed against Full Tilt Poker owners Pocket Kings in April, but it has since been amended to include Party Gaming and Microgaming. Party Gaming’s counsel argues, “Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements for service of process set out in the Hague Convention… Nothing in the Hague Convention permits a Plaintiff to effect service of process by sending a copy of the summons and initial complaint via registered mail.”
The motion adds that Commonwealth Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Secretary J. Michael Brown does not have standing to bring about the lawsuit. Party Gaming explains, “The responsibility to initiate such a lawsuit is vested with the Attorney General, who has not, to date, made an appearance or participated in the filing of this action on the Commonwealth’s behalf.” Jack Conway is Kentucky’s Attorney General. Brown also brought legal action against the owners of 141 internet gambling domain names; that case is still ongoing after being sent from the Kentucky Supreme Court back to the trial court in September.
Furthermore, Party Gaming asserts that attorneys in the Bluegrass State have neither singled out a “loser” nor given an amount lost by anyone in the state: “Plaintiff has failed to identify a single purported ‘loser,’ a single quantifiable loss, and a single date on which an alleged loss has occurred.” It added, “Plaintiff has alleged no facts and, indeed, can allege no facts sufficient to assert that Party Gaming is a ‘winner’ under the statute from which relief can be sought.”
The London-based company argues that in order to be a winner, an entity must also risk becoming a loser. However, “In Plaintiff’s own words, Party Gaming collected only a ‘rake’ or ‘commission’ from participants in poker games… a participation fee that could not be ‘won’ or ‘lost’ and was not affected by the ultimate ‘winner’ or ‘loser’ of the hand.”
If its arguments about standing, the Hague Convention, and winners and losers aren’t enough to sway a court, Party Gaming added that the law involved was not designed to apply to online gaming. The company asserts, “The Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff is attempting to invoke a statute that 100 years of authority in the Kentucky courts illustrates was designed to serve a very different purpose – to protect gamblers and their families from becoming wards of the state and to prevent illegal gambling by rendering void and unenforceable the gambling contract itself and certain related agreements.”
Following the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) in 2006, Party Gaming, a publicly traded company, vacated the U.S. market entirely. The company signed a non-prosecution agreement with the United States Department of Justice in April 2009 and forked over $105 million to settle its past transgressions. Why would Kentucky file suit against it, then? Party Gaming’s court documents note that the litigation is “an aggressive attempt by private attorneys litigating on a contingency basis to utilize an antiquated statute with no applicability to the facts or circumstances of the matter.”
The case is numbered 10-CI-0505. Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest poker legislative and legal headlines.
