The time is now 1:05 pm
You last visited
April 16, 2024, 9:37 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
Jun 6, 2006, 7:06 pm (37 comments)
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
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.
What a shock.
"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,
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.
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.
I hope the lawsuit comes to an end soon in favor of De La Cruz.
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 https://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.
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 https://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.
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.
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!
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
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
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! =)
"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,
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.
The only winners will be the lawyers.
to me since he wasn't there to contribute he have NO RIGHT to any of the jackpot.