Lawsuit over $315 million lottery jackpot goes to trial

Comment #37

dvdiva — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:54:05 GMT

What on earth does that have to do with this thread?

To me it just illustrates why the only pool I will play in will be in the large house I get if I win a large PB/MM/Euro pot. Playing with money like this only invites lawsuits and no one gets a dime of the money for years except the lawyers. The winners may get the annuity by default after the lawsuits are settled either way.

Comment #36

abacogirl1976 — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 02:05:11 GMT

I feel the rush of 320, 903, 101, 911, 932, 500,801, 510, 999, 845, 100 for june month 0309, 9111, 9115, 1039,1139,6930,1036, 9300, 5252, 2019, 1085, 0885, 3872, 3890, 1026

Comment #35

abacogirl1976 — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 01:57:55 GMT

hello everybody

Comment #34

csfb — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:29:03 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by TheGameGrl on June 9, 2006 The problem *IS* the LAWS in California. This case is on a state level and is being heard to gain publicity for the game. Think about it, its california, the land of media where anything goes and often does! I dont agree with the suit nor do I need to hear of the ludicrice(sp?) comments by a slighted and missed opportunist. He didnt pay to play. its that simple.

And I did get a chuckle out of the comment that someone wasnt a citizen of t... [ More ]

Comment #33

CountryBoy — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:42:41 GMT

I Think They Should All Take A Lie Detector Test , And The One Or The One's That Are Caught Lieing Should Not Get Anything. And There Photo Should Be Showed On Live T.V. And Stamped As LIAR

Comment #32

RJOh — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:04:32 GMT

You can bet Jonathan De La Cruz won't forget or any of the others who are suing. Mr. Cruz probably was hoping the seven would settle with him for a few million dollars rather than have a long trial, but with some of his other co-workers trying to run the same scam there's no chance of that happing now.

Comment #31

TheGameGrl — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:16:07 GMT

The problem *IS* the LAWS in California. This case is on a state level and is being heard to gain publicity for the game. Think about it, its california, the land of media where anything goes and often does! I dont agree with the suit nor do I need to hear of the ludicrice(sp?) comments by a slighted and missed opportunist. He didnt pay to play. its that simple.

And I did get a chuckle out of the comment that someone wasnt a citizen of the state. I beleive the term is a resident of the state... [ More ]

Comment #30

csfb — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:07:17 GMT

No, I'm not familiar with this case at all. And I would have to read the decision before making a reasonable comment. Does Alabama have a specific statute on gambling contracts? Why did this case reach the state supreme court in the first place? There must be a question of law.

Nonetheless, that Alabama Supreme Court decision is mandatory in Alabama, but merely pursuasive in other states, i.e. in cases similarly situated.

Comment #29

win_nie — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:45:58 GMT

that sums up this whole matter you don't play you can't get paid

Comment #28

RJOh — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 19:51:24 GMT

That was the Alabama Supreme Court. The tickets were bought in Florida but its courts refused to hear the case since none of the complainers were citizens of that state.

Comment #27

konane — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 19:21:05 GMT

RJ do you remember if that ruling was done by the US Supreme Court, or the Alabama Supreme Court

Comment #26

RJOh — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:59:41 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by csfb on June 8, 2006 Quote: Originally posted by konane on June 8, 2006 The lawyers are slugging it out for the money earned through their fees, the heck with whether winners get a penny.

Have heard a suggestion that if someone sues someone else and loses, loser in lawsuits pays all court costs and all attorney fees including those of the defendant .... which would likely eliminate a lot of let's file and see if they pay us to go away stuff clogging the court... [ More ]

Comment #25

csfb — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:36:23 GMT

That is true, RJOH. In other cases, the monies are released but the defendant is required to file a bond to take care of damages in case he loses. It's case by case basis.

Comment #24

csfb — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:30:22 GMT

Parties to some cases actually include in their prayers that all costs and attorney fees be paid for by the losing party. This detracts people from filing frivolous lawsuits. In addition the attorney is heftily penalized by the court for filing a patently frivolous case.

Actually, I'm glad the court is hearing this case. The decision in this case will be pursuasive guide to all other lottery pools similarly situated. If this case reaches the CA Supreme Court, and decides to hear it, then... [ More ]

Comment #23

nomoneybabe — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:10:36 GMT

With me, I have no problem with lottery pool but the thing that If I miss one drawing and that drawing hit ?? I just terribly cry and the winning members may not give any pitty on me. So better than all, I usually play myself!heehee

Comment #22

teacake58 — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:30:11 GMT

my pool signed a contract if you don't pay you don't get paid lol

Comment #21

RJOh — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:29:48 GMT

rundown99,

I don't know the particulars of this case but in similar cases that I've read about some of the winnings were usually held up until the law suits were settled.

RJOh

Comment #20

konane — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:17:28 GMT

The lawyers are slugging it out for the money earned through their fees, the heck with whether winners get a penny.

Have heard a suggestion that if someone sues someone else and loses, loser in lawsuits pays all court costs and all attorney fees including those of the defendant .... which would likely eliminate a lot of let's file and see if they pay us to go away stuff clogging the court system.

Also my above suggestion that (stated in writing of course) each drawing represents a sep... [ More ]

Comment #19

rundown99 — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:33:24 GMT

RjOH

Does this mean that until the court case is resolved that NO ONE gets ANY of THAT money? So you mean that ever since late last year, NO ONE got ANY money WHATSOEVER? IS that how it is for these lawsuits? Or can the winners get the money anyway while the trial is pending

Comment #18

bellyache — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:21:39 GMT

Wow...that's crazy. Everyone and their mom is claiming to be a part of that lottery pool.

Comment #17

RJOh — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 05:45:10 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on June 7, 2006 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 a... [ More ]

Comment #16

TheGameGrl — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:32:43 GMT

Firstly, the guys case is boarderline ridiculous! Whilst oral agreements can sometimes be upheld in court ( example: an engagement that is cancelled- is constiuted as an oral agreement to become betrothed)- The fiancee' that was jilted DOES often win because a legal promise to wed was announced.

Second- emails can be altered and are not a source of valid confirmation of the actual respondant. Get it on paper and in legible print. Pools CAN work, its the rules and abidance that guides them.... [ More ]

Comment #15

konane — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 23:57:07 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on June 7, 2006 Quote: Originally posted by win_nie on June 6, 2006 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... [ More ]

Comment #14

win_nie — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 23:25:48 GMT

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

Comment #13

bambini — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:46:12 GMT

The only winners will be the lawyers.

Comment #12

KY Floyd — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 20:49:41 GMT

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 n... [ More ]

Comment #11

bellyache — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:27:49 GMT

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

Comment #10

SassyOhio — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:25:50 GMT

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 m... [ More ]

Comment #9

delS — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:03:47 GMT

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... [ More ]

Comment #8

justxploring — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 06:50:46 GMT

Comment #7

RJOh — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 06:04:04 GMT

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 win... [ More ]

Comment #6

Just6ntlc — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 05:35:47 GMT

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

Comment #5

sergiou2 — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 05:15:15 GMT

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.

Comment #4

barbos — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 04:00:19 GMT

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.

Comment #3

win_nie — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:53:28 GMT

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,

Comment #2

bellyache — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:48:12 GMT

What a shock.

Comment #1

loves2lotto — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:15:28 GMT

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.

Lawsuit over $315 million lottery jackpot goes to trial

Lottery Post — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 23:06:02 GMT

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... [ More ]