Yankwitt LLP prevailed in a case before the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed against its client, a New Jersey casino, and its parent hospitality company, by plaintiffs Mills and Chun. The plaintiffs visited the casino during a time when it was running a deposit-match promotion for new players who signed up for an internet gaming account. The plaintiffs were among a group of individuals from Maryland who deposited exactly $1,000 in cash into their newly created internet gaming accounts, which was regarded by the casino as highly unusual and suspicious. Chun and Mills ultimately were investigated and arrested by the New Jersey State Police, and Mills was charged with theft by deception (a charge that was later dropped). Chun’s internet gaming account was temporarily frozen by the casino pending its internal investigation and thereafter reopened for Chun to withdraw his funds.
Instead of doing so, Chun and Mills filed a federal lawsuit against the casino, its parent company, and several police officers. The complaint asserted 26 separate causes of action against the casino, including nearly every conceivable constitutional, contract, quasi-contract and tort claim available under New Jersey federal and state law. The plaintiffs’ claims against the casino were predicated on the theory it had allegedly violated the plaintiffs’ rights by temporarily freezing Chun’s internet gaming account (and deposit) and by reporting the plaintiffs’ activities to the police department.
After completing extensive discovery, including 17 depositions, Yankwitt LLP moved for summary judgment on all claims against the casino (and its parent), relying on exhaustive legal research and skillful analysis of the massive and complicated record.
Those efforts were successful as the court granted Yankwitt LLP’s compelling motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice every remaining claim against the casino and its parent company. Several claims in the case are still pending against the defendant police officers, who are not being represented by Yankwitt LLP.