Motion to Dismiss filed in Borgata lawsuit against Phil Ivey

On Wednesday Wayne Parry of the Associated Press reported that attorneys representing Phil Ivey had filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that had been filed against the 10-time WSOP bracelet winner by the Borgata Hotel and Casino, stating that “Each and every penny of defendants’ winnings was the result of sheer skill,” in court papers.

The lawsuit stems from an alleged incident that took place at the Borgata over the course of four sessions in 2012, which you can read about here if you are unfamiliar with the case.

The motion to dismiss filed this week laid out a total of three reasons for the case to be tossed according to Parry’s article:

• Ivey and the associate did nothing that could be considered cheating;
• A six-month statute of limitations to recover money lost in a supposedly illegal game had expired;
• Supposed violations of state casino regulations can be pursued only by state gambling regulators, not by casinos.

Something doesn’t add up… 2+2 = ?

While I’m no attorney, Point #1 and Point #2 seem to be at complete odds with one another, as Ivey’s attorneys (Edwin J. Jacobs, Louis M. Barbone and Eric H. Lubin of Jacobs & Barbone P.A.) are claiming their wasn’t any cheating in the game, but at the same time are arguing the statute of limitations had expired for filing a lawsuit over an illegal game.

In my estimation this case will eventually make its way before a judge, and as much as everyone feels Ivey has a strong case and it’s just the casino mad somebody got the best of them, the bulk of precedent seems to favor the Borgata.

Another potential problem for Ivey

In the AP report Parry states, “Ivey’s response says he simply noticed things that anyone playing the game could have observed and bet accordingly.”

But all of the evidence points to Ivey knowingly taking advantage of the flawed design.

• The incidents happened on multiple visits to the Borgata
• He is suing Crockford’s Casino in London for withholding millions of dollars he won using edge-sorting there
• He asked for (and received) certain concessions that indicate he was aware of the flaw
• He brought an accomplice who was capable of reading the not so distinct marks

Casino beats the players in another baccarat lawsuit

Ivey’s chances may have taken a hit after another court recently ruled against a group of 14 mini-baccarat players who noticed cards in play at the Golden Nugget in Atlantic City were not shuffled and won some $1.5 million from the casino. In that case the court found the game to be illegal because the cards were unshuffled.

A similar train of thought could be applied to Ivey’s case, where the introduction of defective cards could void the game. In the previous case the cards were supposed to arrive already shuffled and were not –interestingly, in both cases the card company was Gemaco.

And it appears Gemaco wants their name stricken from the lawsuit as well –The Borgata also filed suit against the card manufacturer. According to CalvinAyre.com, Gemaco is claiming that any flaws were “latent and not ascertainable” and the manipulation was done by an individual and not a result of the cards’ nearly imperceptible flaws.