Last year, Mike Postle engaged in what’s perceived to be the poker cheating scandal of the decade. He seemingly received information via his smartphone on other players’ hole cards during steamed games at Stones Gambling Hall (Sacramento).
Unfortunately, the affected players won’t be getting any justice in the meantime. A US District Court judge has ruled that California law doesn’t cover gambling disputes.
Judge William B. Shubb explained his decision through a lengthy opinion letter. He did, however, leave open the possibility for the 88 plaintiffs to launch an appeal.
The plaintiffs collectively launched three separate $10 million lawsuits against Postle and Stones Gambling Hall—for a total of $30 million.
Stones Gambling Hall Successfully Defends Position
Many poker experts who observed Postle’s play agree that he had to have been cheating. After all, he won in nearly every live-streamed session over a year-long span.
Some believe that an insider(s) at Stones Gambling Hall helped him. The casino had access to players’ hole card information before it was streamed via a tape delay.
Poker pro Veronica Brill has been the most vocal alleged victim. She launched one of the three $10 million lawsuits against Postle and Stones.
However, Stones’ lawyers successfully argued that the casino has no responsibility for what takes place between poker player. Nobody has been able to provide 100% undeniable evidence that Stones helped Postle cheat either.
Only Businesses and Property Are Protected In Gambling Cases
Going back to Judge Shubb, he cited a long-held California law that only protects businesses and property from gambling cheats. Players, unfortunately, don’t enjoy the same protections when cheated by fellow gamblers.
“California’s strong public policy against judicial resolution of civil claims arising out of gambling disputes mandates the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s claims against Postle for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment,” Shubb notes.
Again, the players now have a chance to launch an amended appeal. But Bill doesn’t seem overly thrilled with the current ruling.