Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )

Quick Links

USA Mega Lottery Results Gadget for Windows Vista

NetConnect

Internet Domains, simple and cheap

Find a domain name:

  Home

Petition for True Lottery DrawingsMegaplier Petition

Lawsuit over $315 million lottery jackpot goes to trial

Jun. 6, 2006, 7:06 p.m.

Mega Millions Mega Millions: Lawsuit over $315 million lottery jackpot goes to trial

A California lab technician's lawsuit seeking a share of the $315 million Mega Millions multi-state lottery jackpot divvied up by seven co-workers will go to trial.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Michael Brenner on Monday set an April 2 trial date for Jonathan De La Cruz's lawsuit against the seven winners.

De La Cruz said he had been part of the group that bought lottery tickets, but was off the day they bought the winning ticket. His lawsuit, filed in December, contends the group had an oral agreement that everyone would be included whenever they pooled money to buy tickets.

The winners — six lab technicians and a receptionist at the Kaiser Permanente medical office in Garden Grove — rejected De La Cruz's claims.

They said it was the first time they had bought tickets together, and that it had been almost a year since any of them had pooled money with De La Cruz.

The Nov. 15 jackpot was the second largest in state history and one of the largest in the United States.

The winners, who each put in $3 for 21 tickets, opted for a lump-sum payment and each received about $21 million.

AP

We'd love to see your comments here!  Register for a FREE membership — it takes just a few moments — and you'll be able to post comments here and on any of our forums. If you're already a member, you can Log In to post a comment.

37 comments. Last comment 3 years ago by dvdiva.
Page 1 of 3 ForwardGo to Page
loves2lotto's avatar - Lottery 029
Standard Member
Rookie
Charlotte, North Carolina
United States
Member #36533
March 28, 2006
50 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 6, 2006, 8:15 pm - IP Logged

His lawsuit, filed in December, contends the group had an oral agreement that everyone would be included whenever they pooled money to buy tickets.

Yeah Right! That doesn't even make sense. He wasn't there, he didn't provide any money to pay for his share of the tickets. He gets NOTHING. By the way, if he was at work the day before he was off, why didn't he give them the money then? I mean he knew he had the next day off.

bellyache's avatar - 64x64a9wg
Standard Member
Experienced

United States
Member #12856
March 18, 2005
2060 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 6, 2006, 8:48 pm - IP Logged

What a shock. Roll Eyes

Avatar
Standard Member
Regular
nassau
Bahamas
Member #1395
April 13, 2003
71 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 6, 2006, 8:53 pm - IP Logged

"the group had an oral agreement that everyone would be included whenever they pooled money to buy tickets."

so he was not there to pooled his money so therefore I don't see why there is a court case,Disapprove

barbos's avatar - gold bar and cash1
Standard Member
Regular
California
United States
Member #24251
October 17, 2005
62 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 7, 2006, 12:00 am - IP Logged

  Sounds you don't know The Socialist Republic of California guys and believe me that jerk has a very good chances to win the case.  It wouldn't happen i Ohio cause nobody would even know they won.

Avatar
Standard Member
New Member
New Member
St. Louis
United States
Member #2383
September 18, 2003
15 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 7, 2006, 1:15 am - IP Logged

I run a lottery pool and work.  Before every drawing, I provide copies of the tickets AND the name of everyone in the pool.

I hope to God this idiot loses.


There's only two kinds of people that win the lottery, amigos....those that already have money and first time players.


United States
Member #16902
June 2, 2005
3493 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 7, 2006, 1:35 am - IP Logged

I hope the lawsuit comes to an end soon in favor of De La Cruz.

RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
Standard Member
Top 25 Poster
Elite
mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
10546 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 7, 2006, 2:04 am - IP Logged

If the date April 2 is right then this guy has successfully held up his co-workers getting all their money for another year or so.  If the court accepts his version of the so-called oral agreement to share with everyone then everyone one in the work area of these lottery winners are entitled to a share of their winnings.

This Jonathan De La Cruz is a lot like Betty Domingo of Lubbock, Texas http://www.lotterypost.com/news/135160.htm who sued all her co-worker for a share of their lottery winnings because one of the pool member didn't cover her when she didn't contribute money to the pool.

There may be people here at LP who may be thinking by contributing ideas and posting numbers that they will be entitled to a share of any large jackpot won by another member if they can locate him.

* What happens most *
 * will most likely happen again *

justxploring's avatar - villiarna
Standard Member
Top 100 Poster
Veteran
Wandering Aimlessly
United States
Member #25708
November 5, 2005
4379 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 7, 2006, 2:50 am - IP Logged

If the date April 2 is right then this guy has successfully held up his co-workers getting all their money for another year or so.  If the court accepts his version of the so-called oral agreement to share with everyone then everyone one in the work area of these lottery winners are entitled to a share of their winnings.

This Jonathan De La Cruz is a lot like Betty Domingo of Lubbock, Texas http://www.lotterypost.com/news/135160.htm who sued all her co-worker for a share of their lottery winnings because one of the pool member didn't cover her when she didn't contribute money to the pool.

There may be people here at LP who may be thinking by contributing ideas and posting numbers that they will be entitled to a share of any large jackpot won by another member if they can locate him.

I Agree!

You hit that proverbial nail* on the head (ouch!) RJOh. I once gave in to someone who did not deserve some money not a lottery only because I didn't want to wait & battle it out in court.  I always say I'd like to join a pool, but now I'm starting to change my mind. The other point you made is also well taken. If the courts rule in his favor, everyone who works there might then want their share.  I don't think he'll win. 

*De spijker op de kop slaan  is the Dutch Proverb I found.  Ins Schwarze treffen (to hit in the black) comes from archery.  I wasn't sure where that expression came from.  Thought it was just an American cliche.  Ah, what would I do without Google?  I know, I'd be in bed sleeping.

Avatar
Standard Member
Experienced
md
United States
Member #14305
April 20, 2005
442 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 7, 2006, 9:03 am - IP Logged

This fool will not win.  Any judge and or jury in his/her right mind would know that when Jackpots hit those large numbers like $300,000,000, that someone in a pool will do everything in their power to continue pooling their monies.  Short of him attending a love one's funeral, to miss work and miss making your pool contribution is ludicrious at best!

All you rooters  for the underdog supporters, he is not an underdog, and furthermore, put yourself in the 7 winners shoes.  How the hell would you feel for someone to drag you through a legal process after such an exciting moment in your life - all because they are rooten on the inside with greed, jeaolousy and envy!  Think on it!  You wouldn't like it one bit!

SassyOhio's avatar - Picture012
Standard Member
Regular
Columbus Ohio
United States
Member #36345
March 25, 2006
234 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 7, 2006, 11:25 am - IP Logged

And AGAIN lol that is why I state VERY CLEARLY in my Agreement to my Lottery Players in my pools that IF YOU DID NOT PAY FOR YOUR FUNDS BEFORE THE END OF THE WORK DAY FOR THE DAY OF THE DRAWING YOU WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANTYHING AND I also had one lotto player stop playing this week and I revised my agreement to state on it what this Player had declined to continue playing and I will req notification IN WRITING For the date that she is planning on returning to the pool

AND I had her send me a email from her stating that she was no longer going to be playing til after summer and sent one back to REQ HER TO please  send me in writing that she wants back in and the date she wants back in on.. I do not PLAY with that crap..... I NOTE EVERYTHING if they dont like it they can join a different pool is the way that I look at it .. but the people in my pools love that I am this THORO because they KNOW that there protected against anyone taking ANY of THEIR money                                         

Party

Hopin To Be The Lucky Ones!!

COME ON MEGA! MEGA-ME-RICH!

 

Please feel free to visit my sisters memorial page that I have now completed

www.freewebs.com/wendyinmyheartforever

bellyache's avatar - 64x64a9wg
Standard Member
Experienced

United States
Member #12856
March 18, 2005
2060 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 7, 2006, 12:27 pm - IP Logged

And AGAIN lol that is why I state VERY CLEARLY in my Agreement to my Lottery Players in my pools that IF YOU DID NOT PAY FOR YOUR FUNDS BEFORE THE END OF THE WORK DAY FOR THE DAY OF THE DRAWING YOU WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANTYHING AND I also had one lotto player stop playing this week and I revised my agreement to state on it what this Player had declined to continue playing and I will req notification IN WRITING For the date that she is planning on returning to the pool

AND I had her send me a email from her stating that she was no longer going to be playing til after summer and sent one back to REQ HER TO please  send me in writing that she wants back in and the date she wants back in on.. I do not PLAY with that crap..... I NOTE EVERYTHING if they dont like it they can join a different pool is the way that I look at it .. but the people in my pools love that I am this THORO because they KNOW that there protected against anyone taking ANY of THEIR money                                         

Party

Good for you SassyOhio. When you win a jackpot, you will be protected against people making false claims about being in the pool. Or at least you will have proof they weren't in it! =)

KY Floyd's avatar - ysxqgbmxfua5f51qpjc
Standard Member
Senior
NY
United States
Member #24178
October 16, 2005
1739 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 7, 2006, 4:49 pm - IP Logged

"the group had an oral agreement that everyone would be included whenever they pooled money to buy tickets."

so he was not there to pooled his money so therefore I don't see why there is a court case,Disapprove

The meaning of such an agreement seems crystal clear.  If the group had an agreement that "everyone would be included" whenever they (which means the whole group, and not just the part of the group that is present at any given time) bought tickets then everyone who was part of the group is included. Collecting the ticket money from somebody who isn't there when the rest of the group chips in for the tickets is just one of many details that don't invalidate the rest of the agreement. Whether or not there really was an agreement, and what the agreement was, is what the dispute is about. Seven people buying 21 tickets is a good indication that when they bought the tickets they didn't intend to share any winnings with an eighth person, but their intent at the time would be meaningless if there was a valid previous agreement.

Apparently this group didn't have a written agreement, and now they're getting exactly what they should have expected.

Avatar
Standard Member
Regular

United States
Member #34665
March 1, 2006
184 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 7, 2006, 6:46 pm - IP Logged

The only winners will be the lawyers.

Avatar
Standard Member
Regular
nassau
Bahamas
Member #1395
April 13, 2003
71 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 7, 2006, 7:25 pm - IP Logged

to me since he wasn't there to contribute he have NO RIGHT to any of the jackpot.