The Meadows Casino Case

LITMAN, et. al. v. CANNERY CASINO RESORTS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, WASHINGTON TROTTING ASSOCIATION, INC., a Delaware corporation, WTA ACQUISITION CORP., a Delaware corporation, CANNERY CASINO RESORTS, LLC, CANNERY CASINO RESORTS and WASHINGTON TROTTING ASSOCIATION, INC. t/d/b/a THE MEADOWS RACETRACK & CASINO, an unincorporated association, CANNERY CASINO RESORTS, an unincorporated association consisting of one or more yet unidentified natural and/or legal persons, individually and jointly, Defendants. CASE NO: 2012-8149 (Pennsylvania, Washington County). Gregg Zegarelli, Counsel for Plaintiffs. President Judge Debbie O'Dell-Seneca Presiding. These documents are for your convenience only. These documents may have been modified, redacted or may be incomplete in some regards. For citing these cases, you are encouraged to obtain the filed versions in the exact form and format as filed. This may not be a complete docket of all items; you should reconcile with the official court docket. Subject to the foregoing, the documents are public record. * = Of Special Note. Important: Some of the documents are very large and may take some time to download; that is, they may not open immediately.
Washington County Documents				Appellate Court Documents	Explanation
1	*		PA Gaming Control Board, Meadows Civil Fine Consent Agreement		This is an Exhibit to the Complaint. See No. 2. "The OEC maintains that from the period from May 27, 2011 through August 27, 2012 the Meadows violated 58 Pa. Code §521.2 by collecting craps vigorish of 5% of all Buy Bets and Lay Bets in a manner that was not in compliance with its May 27, 2011, Rule Submission." Plaintiffs were the complainants who initiated the investigation regarding this practice. MEADOWS PAYS $30,000 AS CIVIL PENALTY.
2	*	6-5-13	Third Amended Complaint in Civil Action		This Complaint, with exhibits, identifies the personal claim of right by the patrons of The Meadows who were personally injured by the Meadows taking their money in violation of the rules of the game. Even though the casino paid the civil penalty, that does not give back the ill-gotten gains to patrons. There were three amended complaints because Defendants objected to every count in every complaint and Plaintiffs tried to amend to accommodate the objections, until it became clear to counsel for Plaintiffs that no amendment to the complaint would avoid Defendants objections to everything.
2A		6-21-13	Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Third Amended Complaint		Even though Defendants paid a civil penalty to the Gaming Board for their action, the Defendants assert there is no claim that Plaintiffs can make to recover their money.
3		7-2-13	ORDER: Extending Discovery Schedule		Order of Court: Extending Discovery. 212b Complex Case
4		8-7-13	Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery		Plaintiffs served a motion to compel discovery because Defendants objected to providing discovery (information) because of their pending objections.
5		8-19-13	ORDER: Scheduling Oral Arguments on Preliminary Objections		Order of Court: Oral Arguments on Preliminary Objections are scheduled for October 7, 2013, also orally argued on the same date was Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
6		9-23-13	Defendants' Preliminary Objections Brief		Defendants object to every basis by which Plaintiffs could recover their money.
7		9-30-13	Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to Preliminary Objections		Plaintiffs reply that the claims are valid.
8		10-2-13	Defendants' Motion to Dismiss		Ten months following the case initiating, and a few days prior to oral argument on Defendants preliminary objections, Defendants object to the Court's power to hear the controversy, claiming lack of "subject-matter jurisdiction." See No. 10 and 17. Defendants claim that the court lacks any power to hear the dispute.
9		10-6-13	Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss		Plaintiffs reply that the Pennsylvania Court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
10	*	10-7-13	ORDER: Denying Casino Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction		Court DENIES casino motion to dismiss for the court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
11		11-4-13	Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration		Defendants now ask the Court to RECONSIDER the Order that denied Defendants' request for dismissal of the case. See 10.
12		11-7-13	Defendants' Brief in Support of Motion for Reconsideration		Defendants serve a brief regarding their reconsideration motion.
13		11-7-13	Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition of Motion for Reconsideration		Plaintiffs serve a brief opposing the reconsideration motion.
14		11-12-13	Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration		Plaintiffs supplement their brief opposing the reconsideration motion.
15		11-12-13	Defendants' Supplemental Cases		At the oral argument, the Defendants handed the Court certain cases, claimed by Plaintiffs to be clearly inapplicable to the context.
16		12-3-13	Defendants' Supplemental Emails		Following oral argument, during the Court's consideration of the question, Defendants serve additional supplemental emails on the Court.
17	*	12-16-13	ORDER: Denying Casino Defendants' Motion to "Reconsider" the prior Order that Denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction		Court DENIES (again) casino motion to reconsider the denial to dismiss for the court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
18	*	12-17-13	ORDER: Overruling in part Casino Defendants' Preliminary Objections		Court upholds counts against casino for BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, FRAUD, CONVERSION, CIVIL CONSPIRACY AND FOR AN ACCOUNTING
19	*	1-15-14	Defendants' Answer and New Matter		Defendants answer the Complaint.
20		1-28-14	Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter		Plaintiffs file a Reply to New Matter, incorporating the Complaint.
21		2-10-14	Defendant Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' New Matter		Plaintiffs position was that Defendants were merely re-arguing items that should have been or could have been argued in their responses to the Complaint, and were trying to take another opportunity to re-argue points already decided by the Court. See No. 37.
21A		2-10-14	Plaintiffs' Motion against Defendants for Sanctions		Plaintiffs file a Motion for Sanctions for the reasons stated in the document. See No. 21.
22		2-14-14	Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery		Defendants refused to produce any documents unless Plaintiffs signed an "attorneys eyes only" document that would significantly increase the cost of the case. Defendants held all documents, even non-confidential documents, hostage. Plaintiffs had to file a motion to compel the Defendants to produce documents. See No. 25.
23		2-26-14	Defendants' Response in Opposition to Compel Discovery
24		2-27-14	Plaintiffs' Brief in Support Motion to Compel Discovery
25	*	02-27-14	ORDER: Compelling Casino Defendants to Produce		The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion, orders the Casino to produce documents overruling their objections.
26		03-11-14	ORDER: Scheduling Oral Arguments for Preliminary Objections
27		03-13-14	Defendants' Motion to "Amend" Order to Compel Defendants to Produce		On the day prior to their production obligation, Defendant Casino files a motion to "amend" the Court Order (No. 25), which is effectively to RESCIND or to reconsider the Court's prior Order compelling Defendants to produce. See No. 29.
28		03-14-14	Plaintiffs' Counter Motion to Strike, Exhibits		Plaintiffs file a Motion to Strike Defendants' request to "amend"
29	*	03-18-14	ORDER: Denying Casino Defendants' Motion to "Amend" Discovery Order Compelling Defendants to Produce		The Court denies the Casino's request to "amend" the Order compelling the Casino to produce. The Casino produced and relied upon a hearsay letter from the Commonwealth Gaming Board.
30		03-21-14	Plaintiffs' Certification of Motion for Sanctions
31		03-21-14	Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Motion for Sanctions
32		03-31-14	Defendants' Brief in Support of Preliminary Objections
33		03-31-14	Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery		Defendants served a Motion to Compel Discovery. Resolved without Court determination. See No. 35.
34		04-1-14	Defendants' Brief in Opposition of Motion for Sanctions (untimely filed)		After receiving Plaintiffs' Brief and Counter-Motion to Strike, Defendants filed an untimely Brief, in violation of L-1028(c).
35		04-02-14	Plaintiffs' Letter to Judge O'Dell-Seneca		Plaintiffs notify the Court of Defendants' violation of L-1028(c) and failure to timely file their Brief.
36		04-04-14	ORDER: Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions against Casino Defendants		The Court denies Plaintiffs' request to sanction Defendants on this motion.
37	*	04-04-14	ORDER: Denying Casino Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' New Matter		The Court overrules all of Defendants' preliminary objections.
		04-04-14	THE STAGE OF LITIGATION FOR PLEADINGS IS NOW COMPLETED.		(Pleading are normally completed on a Complaint and Answer, sometimes with a "New Matter" and Reply thereto. The volume of documents above to close the pleadings is highly unusual.)
			The case has been settled on terms acceptable to all parties.