Two employees of a Chicago Heights, Illinois, bakery are suing co-workers over a $118 million Mega Millions jackpot, alleging they were unfairly left out of the winnings.
Jose Franco and Marco Medina were regular participants in a lottery pool with co-workers at the bakery for about a year, according to the suit.
The group won $9 during a drawing on May 1, and there was an understanding that the money would be used to purchase more tickets for a May 4 drawing, the suit said. Some employees kicked in additional money, but Franco and Medina say they weren't asked to contribute.
The group won the grand prize that day, but an attorney for Franco and Medina said the two were cut out because they did not contribute additional money.
The suit said the group collects money every Monday and Thursday for Mega Millions drawings. That week, the money was instead collected on Wednesday, and Franco and Medina were not notified. Attorney Erron Fisher argued they were still involved in the pool because of the $9 rolled in from the May 1 drawing, which Franco and Medina paid toward.
"Our clients got in on the rollover to buy the tickets," Fisher said. "Lo and behold, they pulled the winning ticket but afterward, our clients were told 'no.' "
The suit, filed Tuesday in Cook County Circuit Court, names 11 people who split the Mega Millions winnings. Fisher said all work in the bakery for Pita Pan, which makes Greek pitas, pocket bread and flatbread.
A woman who answered the phone Wednesday at Pita Pan declined to comment.
The suit asked lottery officials to hold off on dispersing the winnings pending a court ruling on the lawsuit.
Fisher said he believes there are three additional Pita Pan employees with similar claims who are seeking lawyers.
Most people are probably rolling their eyes at the prospect of another lottery pool lawsuit, but they might have a case here, if lottery tickets were purchased with the previous drawing's winnings.
McGinnin56: Where are you! Wanna share those views again on Lottery PRO Choice? Lol.
It seems the "Winsome Twosome" does have a case reading this preliminary report, but that's not why I roll my eyes HRH Todd. I am PRO individual and do not support pools...lottery politics - lol.
This is the reason i dislike lottery pools...
"Jose Franco and Marco Medina were regular participants in a lottery pool with co-workers at the bakery for about a year, according to the suit."
I see nothing wrong with occasionally pooling when the jackpots are huge, but this is exactly what happens when pools are played every week and some players are in some drawings and out others. The difference in this story is the previous winnings were part of the pool and if a share of the winnings belonged to these two, they have an excellent law suit.
As you would see in my post, we agree on their legal standing if their arguments are indeed valid. On the matter of participating in pools, let's just say we'll agree to disagree.
Consider this though: Think those other clowns who collected will be presenting as a possible argument that the first 9 picks didn't produce the winning jackpot? Ergo, those who didn't contribute additional monies in that drawing do not qualify? lol!
I have heard more insane arguments presented in court, so I wouldnt put it pass them!
if they indeed had rollover money in the pool, why would they not just include them in the winnings... they would still get more money than they will ever need... people are so greedy.
I have to agree with this, especially if they were normal, consistent players of the pool. If The pool won $9 bux from the previous draw, that should have been included in the tickets towards the Jackpot win.
At the very least, they should divide the # of tickets purchased for the Jackpot win and calculate the percentage that each would have won from the 9 tickets from the previous draw. They could split that amount and include the 2 people that are suing. Then divide the remaining amount to the people who actually paid into the Jackpot pool's draw
Rolling eyes lol,
exactly what I thought until I read the whole story. 
this might be legitimate and not sour grapes.
No rolled eyes here. They might not be entitled to an equal share, if other players contributed extra money for the draw. But if previous winnings were rolled over, I'd be willing to bet that they are entitled to something.
I don't have anything against pools because they tend to win often enough. Having to go to court to get your money is better than not getting any money at all. I play alone though hehe.
GREED.
How much money does one person need?
If more tickets were purchased from the $9 win, all that participated in the draw by paying to play the previous draw should be participating in collecting the jackpot win
now. It does not matter if the 2 were missed that day, it's POOL money, it all goes together. Maybe if they passed out winnings as they were won in cash, the 2 wouldn't
have a case. It was rolled over to buy more tickets....I believe they have a case. They claim they were regulars for about a year, I hope they have some proof of that.
I'll bet this will get pretty ridiculous....I can see it now: None of the tickets purchased with the $9 won.
Or the $9 divided 13 ways doesn't cover a full ticket purchase.
Or the $9 was for extra tickets on top of the regular biweekly purchase which the 2 outcasts didn't officially contribute to that draw.
I would never play a stinking pool, too many problems and after the fact rules to overcome when a big win comes sailing in.
No copies. No names. I wish they were closer. I'd join the suit too.
This is what the judge should do.
Take 9 and divide it by the total # of tickets purchased.
Take that percentage and multiply it by the total jackpot.
Take that number and divide it by the total number of people in the pool including the two people originally left out.
Subtract the amount given to the two people left out from the total jackpot.
Divide that amount equally by the remaning pool participants.
Example.
Assume the 11 each added $1.00.
Take 9 and divide it by the total # of tickets purchased.
9/20 = .45
Take that percentage and multiply it by the total jackpot.
.45* 118,000,000 =53,100,000.
Take that number and divide it by the total number of people in the pool including the two people originally left out.
53,100,000 /13 = 4,084,615.
Subtract the amount given to the two people left out from the total jackpot.
118,000,000 - 8,169,230 = 109,830,770
Divide that amount equally by the remaning pool participants.
109,830,770 / 11 = 9,984,615.
Is there a link to the story of the jackpot win?
Still PRO-choice.
These guy's look to have a SERIOUS crack at a getting a lions share of the lotto loot! 
Wouldn't mind trading shoes with either of them.
Fisher said he believes there are three additional Pita Pan employees with similar claims who are seeking lawyers.
I'll check in again with you after the other 3 clowns join the circus.
I want to be a LAWYER when I grow up!
Yea, they have a case alright, most of the claims you hear of are laughable, but still get heard by a judge.
watch this case closely, that rollover money is going to make all the difference.
Lawyers are one of god's great gifts to mankind.
If you should pursue becoming an ambulance chaser, you should take great pride and
reverence in this coveted position.
The 2 workers shouldn't get a dime they knew that every monday and thursday the group collects money for the drawing that seem to be the rules
They just felt some kind of way after not contributing that game and feel like they deserve some money that wasn't the agreement with the group.
The judge should send their attorneys away this is the typical story of lottery winners it's the greedy ones that know they didn't put money in for that game that tries to sue.
they didnt collect the money on monday but on wednesday and werent told about it. they still had money in the poll from the $9 they won and kept to pay for the next poll. sounds like a good case to me
I agree with Todd and feel there is merit to their lawsuit. It would be nice if they disclosed what additional funds were actually added tothe winning draw.
If these two gentleman can validate their claims of having been in the previous drawing then I feel the Judge will rule in their favor. They won't get an equal share but will be entitled to a decent cut.
The more I think about it, maybe we do agree because the last pool I was in continued until all the winnings were spent on more tickets plus kicking in a couple more bucks. A one time thing turned into multiple drawings and not exactly what I had in mind when I entered.
Hate to say it, but I was sort of relieved when we won nothing on the last drawing.
Stack47: Here's the thing, a few of us on LP were actually hoping that this lottery pool win would be the one notable exception and some even commented as much as you'll find in the archives. Certainly if I had the time and resources, I would do a statistical analysis of lottery pool wins that did not wind up in litigation versus those that did. That would tell a very interesting story far more substantitve than our anecdotal remarks stemming from fading memories tainted by preconcieved biases. If I were ever in a pool (bite my tongue) and we won, I would never support going to court to fight against a few that laid claim. The matter would definitely be settled among participants past and present. I don't want my chance of a lifetime to be marred with stress like this.
100%. Better to play alone than enjoy lawsuit if pool becomes 'lucky'. The reports about pool lawsuits appears again and again...
I wouldn't be in any sized lottery pool ever again [I wasn't even told how much small prize monies won were being rolled-over into purchasing additional draw lines each week]!
However, for those that are in, or considering entry into, a lottery pool -- make sure that the proposed leader of your lottery pool is a fair person (this is difficult, since they'd rarely be more than a mere acquaintance)!
Keep in the mind that IF (keyword - 'IF"!!!) pool wins BIG money... for example, jackpot in Powerball... then 100% any man or woman shows their hidden nature. Money changes people. Especially BIG money.
That jackpot was bought by a $9 that was won from a previous draw. Its not hard math.
The plaintiffs DO NOT deserve an equal share with the others because they only contributed
to the jp via a previous win of $9. But this is just me being rational. Their lawyers will argue that
absent a written agreement, the JP should be divided EQUALLY among all the members. Ouch! Double ouch!
People who are in charge of pools don't understand and outline the rules. people who play in pools don't understand the rules. I stopped contributing to pools at work because of this particular scenario and many, many others. I can see conflicts but some people are just blind or refuse to see the problem with inconsistent lottery pools. besides, I may give but I'm not sharing.
Reality is... these JackPot winners SHOULD NOT be liable to split the jackpot with the other NON-participants. The Roll over money that existed should simply be paid out according to percentage of the Lottery Pool to the 2 "players" that were in the pool previously. So $9.00 divided by number of players for that draw is what SHOULD be paid out to those individuals who were NOT a part of the JackPot winning draw.
If these Lottery Players who DID NOT participate were so concerned about NOT being included, why didn't they say ANYTHING on Thursday when the ORIGINAL collections would take place on prior draws to those who were in charge of the Lottery Pool? Apparentley they had NO qualms about NOT putting money in when it WASN'T asked for on Thursday because it was apparently collected on Wednesday! Even though they MAY not have been informed of the unusual Wednesday collection. Reality is, the NON-participants may have possibly thought "ah, ill just skip this draw and keep my money in my pocket for now instead of participating in this drawing", thinking that they might just be throwing there money away for this upcoming drawing.
It's not like they were making waves for NOT being able to participate PRIOR to the FRIDAY Mega Millions draw. If anything, maybe the one buying the tickets bought them a day earlier possibly due to the Jackpot excitement of $118,000,000 or just NOT being able to purchase the tickets on Thursday because of other plans or a combination of both. Who Knows...
All I know, based on the common sense of Property Ownership, the 2 non-participants should receive their share of the $9.00 winnings and that's it! Simple as that. You don't participate, YOU DON'T WIN!
Lottery Pools should NOT be obigated to make sure everyone who were in previous draws are magically included in future draws based upon past participation. That's just not fair. What's fair is that all who ARE part of the pool and want to remain A PART of the pool, pony over the dough when required or in worst case scenario before the drawing occurs.
Crying about it AFTER the Jackpot was won, well, that's just greed on the non-participants part.
This is the same as if you played the same numbers every drawing for 10 years, but, failed to play them the night they actually were drawn. Should the lottery be responsible to pay out based upon previous participation with the winning numbers? Of course not, and so it is in this case that the jackpot should be paid to those WHO PARTICIPATED FOR THAT SPECIFIC DRAWING! SIMPLE!
This is EXACTLY why I WANT NOTHING to do with Lottery Pools!
They have legit claim to equal share. The $9 from the previous pool is their participation in the jackpot drawing. One could claim that had that $9 not existed, they would not have won it, especially since it was already established that the money won from the previous drawing would go towards the next. Sounds like a slam dunk case to me.
I think they should get equal share.
My favorite line from Skakespeare:
"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!"
(From: Henry The Sixth)
Wisdom survives the ages - lol!
Wow, equal share. They didn't even put in for this drawing, while others DID. So that means the others, according to your logic, should end up with equal share of the jackpot. A more equitable approach would be a percentage basis of the jackpot that those 2 who DID not pay into the winning jackpot drawing but from the $9 win plus whatever else was paid in additionally for the jackpot drawing. You would have to calculate what everyone put in, then come up with the figures if you use your logic. However...... The lottery pool didn't just take the whopping $9 win and use ONLY that.... no, they put other funds in that were NOT part of the previous $9 win.
In any case, if I'm hearing you correctly, let's say they give the non-participants their equal share of the $9 win prior, then that evens things up and the money spent on the winning tickets are then free and clear for the participants?
In either case, the $9 should be distributed to the participants involved and the next drawing should be based on those who actually paid in wheather or not another $9 was used towards the drawing. All that matters is that the non-participants are made whole for the $9 win, NOT the jackpot.
The rightful property of the non-participants IS their equal share of the $9 win. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. That they are surely entitled to. Problem is, it won't cover lawyer fees to try and get the equal share of the jackpot.
I think this case WILL get ruled in favor of the Lottery pool and against the non-participants. IMO. BTW, it was an "Understanding", nothing in writing that future winnings go towards future draws.
All we can do is what and see my friend.
Heck, why don't they just give the $9 to the two to split. Heck, they won the jackpot, they can afford to give all the previous winnings to the two who didn't play in the last draw..
They did put in for the drawing. The $9 was their particpation in the winning jackpot drawing. It bought them their ticket in. That $9 has equal weight to the new money the pool received for the new drawing. Why would it be on a percentage basis? They already had an understanding that the $9 won in the previous drawing would be used in the next. It's the same thing if they had given these guys their share of the $9, only for them to hand it right back and say "this is my buy-in into the next drawing".
Two things that make this a slam dunk case:
1. The $9 was used to purchase the winning ticket.
2. They had an understanding that the $9 won would go towards the next drawing.
That's equal share in my book.
The $9 was used on behalf of the pool players that contributed money to purchase the tickets that won the prize of $9.
The $118m Jackpot was won with shares of money that belonged to the two plaintiffs. There was an existing authorization by the two plaintiffs, that saw their share in the $9, share in the pool of a larger fund, that won the $118m Jackpot. I believe that the two plaintiffs should at least, get a proportion in the Jackpot, that equals their share of money contribution, as already reflected in these posts by others.
Without considering any other factors that the Judge or Jury might be looking at, I believe that the following formula should be minimal enough to help determine the share of winnings for each player, and that is, assuming that the two plaintiffs will only be the plaintiffs in this matter before the lawsuit is over.
Each of the 11 players that contributed a dollar each has a total contribution of $1-9/13 or $22/13 or $1.692
Each of the 2 players that contributed ZERO dollar, each has a total contribution of $0-9/13 or $9/13 or $0.692
The 2 players contributed significantly less than 1/2(0.408) of what each of the other 11 players contributed.
The distribution of prize money will not be equal for the 11 and the 2 plaintiffs in the least. The plaintiffs may be allowed to receive the equivalent of 41% of what each of the other 11 players get, and again, that is of course if this case takes a simple linear path, which may be un-likely, as there could be any number of un-written practices between th eplayers that could be introduced, that could add to or reduce what the 2 plaintiffs may get.
Great line. Gotta love Shakespeare! Shakespeare slammed lawyers in several lovely different ways in different penned pieces (he musta had his share of run-ins with them).
In "Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio uses the line "O'er lawyers' fingers, who straight dream on fees;"
In "King Lear", the fool defends a speech in riddles by comparing it to an "unfee'd lawyer".
In the past, lottery prizes for pool members have been split in proportion to the amount of money contributed by each pool member. So, a player that contributes $1.00 would get half the amount that a player that contribuited $2.00 gets. This traditional precedent is most likely to be played out again in this matter
The contributions of money to purchase the winning ticket were not equal, and therfore the sharing of prizes should not be equal.
What is accepted shared equal among all, is an intagible component of the event that caused the jackpot win, the matter of randomness, etc. This factor is not easily measurable and no monies, or weights of monies were assigned to any player in specifics. Therefore, this accepted equality plays no role in the dividing of the prize money. Only the measurable monies that were brought in by each player, should be used to sort out the payouts to each player including the two who did not contribute additional dollars.
Pools are for fools. What should be a time of total elation is instead a time of contention and strife. I would rather have less of a chance of winning with my few buck per draw plays than to win any amount of prize with a pool of fools.
j.w.blue's answer is the right method to distribute the lottery funds this is the only way to have the funds divided up and makes lots of sense. well done jwblue