Casinos refused to give Phil Ivey what he had won. Instead of paying him, they sued him. I wrote about it today at The Federalist.
Casinos refused to give Phil Ivey what he had won. Instead of paying him, they sued him. I wrote about it today at The Federalist.
Dear Mr Sammin: Read your article on Phil Ivey’s being cheated at THE FEDERALIST. My question is: why did the casino sue them in federal court? At first I couldn’t even figure out how a federal court would have jurisdiction. The District Court’s opinion implies that Ivey broke a state law, which somehow breaks a federal law. If this is prevailing practice, it’s no wonder that everything is now a federal case. But I’m still puzzled at the choice of the feds. Federal courts have a reputation of being a good deal more honest than state courts. Nor is New Jersey a state that shines for its court system. A big player, such as a casino, would likely carry more weight than would two gamblers. But it didn’t work out that way.
Any speculations?
I suspect it’s diversity jurisdiction: Borgata is in Jersey, Ivey lives in some other state.