Grosch v. Tunica County, Mississippi
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89364, 2008 WL 2692610, 569 F. Supp.2d 676 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exclusive jurisdiction of the Mississippi Gaming Commission under Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-157(2) is limited to disputes concerning the payment of a 'gaming debt.' It does not extend to common law tort claims, such as trespass to chattels or conversion, that arise from a casino's actions but do not involve a dispute over the validity or payment of the debt itself.
Facts:
- A patron won an undisputed amount of money while gambling at the HWCC-Tunica, Inc. casino, known as Hollywood casino.
- When the patron attempted to cash in his casino chips for the money he won, Hollywood casino staff demanded that he physically hand over his driver's license.
- The patron refused to physically surrender his ID, fearing the casino would copy it and send it to other casinos as a warning that he was a card counter.
- The patron was willing to show his ID to casino staff to verify his age, but not to relinquish physical control of it.
- Hollywood casino refused to cash the patron's chips and pay him his winnings unless he physically gave them his ID.
- The patron's ID was eventually taken from him by the Tunica County Sheriff's Department and given to the casino.
- After the casino received and allegedly copied the ID, it paid the patron his winnings.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant HWCC-Tunica, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
- The plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint asserted several claims, including trespass to chattels and conversion.
- Defendant HWCC-Tunica, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for trespass to chattels and conversion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Mississippi Gaming Commission have exclusive jurisdiction over a patron's common law tort claims for trespass to chattels and conversion when those claims arise from a casino's refusal to cash the patron's undisputed winnings unless the patron physically surrenders his separate personal property (his identification)?
Opinions:
Majority - W. Allen Pepper, Jr.
No, the Mississippi Gaming Commission does not have exclusive jurisdiction over these claims. The court found that the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction, as defined by § 75-76-157(2) of the Mississippi Gaming Control Act, is strictly limited to claims for the payment of a 'gaming debt.' The court reasoned that the plaintiff's claims for trespass to chattels and conversion were not for the payment of a gaming debt, as the casino did not dispute the winnings and eventually paid them. Instead, the claims focused on the casino's alleged unlawful interference with the plaintiff's property (his winnings) by conditioning payment on the surrender of different personal property (his ID). Relying on the Mississippi Supreme Court's decision in Duckworth, the court concluded that the phrase 'all gaming matters' from the earlier Shindler case was dicta and that the statute's plain language limited the Commission's jurisdiction to disputes over the debts themselves, not to separate torts that happen to occur in a casino.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the jurisdictional boundary between state courts and the Mississippi Gaming Commission. It prevents casinos from using the Commission's limited statutory authority as a shield against liability for common law torts that do not directly concern the validity or payment of a gambling wager. The ruling ensures that patrons retain access to the judicial system for wrongs such as conversion, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution committed by casino operators. By narrowly construing the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction, the court preserves traditional legal remedies for individuals harmed by a casino's actions beyond simple disputes over winnings.
