Not sure if we trolled OP or OP trolled us

Not trying to take either side in this apparent pissing contest that has broken out here.... However, I was actually playing with a regular at my local card room down here in Tampa a few weeks back, and the guy was telling me how he slipped and fell at the Hard Rock in Tampa here a few years back, sued and won, was playing there for about 3 months after, and then one day, security came up and told was informed he had been banned from all Hard Rock properties and if he stepped foot on any of them, he would be charged with Trespassing.

Tried prying out of him how much he got, he wouldn't say, but he said it was worth being banned.

But, they can definitely and most likely will ban you if you sue.

That being said, if I was in your shoes, I would 100% sue, and try and get a decent chunk of change for time, aggravation, stress etc as well...... Minimum $5k at this point. Especially if you actually have to take the time to hire a lawyer and take time off of work to testify.

But GL, and hope you do decide to keep us informed to what happens....

fwiw you can potentially be banned from other casino properties as well.

It's not so much about "retaliation" as it is risk management, so other properties have just as much incentive to ban players who sue then the one who actually had already been sued -- surprised the guy in the post above me was talking about was talking about it openly at the casino, if somebody in management heard they very well might throw him out.

Not saying you shouldn't try to get your money back, you obv deserve it, just something to consider.

If the trolling and counter-trolling continues, we're going to close the thread. So let's keep things civil.

I am surprise the man that fell at Hard Rock wasn't in breach of the settlement and sued. These settlements almost always have confidentiality clauses, which is why the timing to blast social media is in case you don't settle and lose in court, not now.

This is just a local horse track poker room with 80% regulars, as long as you don't threaten to shoot up the place, i don't think anyone really cares about too much there... lol also, to the post below, the guy never mentioned anything about a confidentially clause or anything, that being said, even if they did, he didn't seem like the type who would care too much, as he was an older gentleman..... but he did say he actually had no idea he was even banned until they came up and said something to him...

They were t even need a sign. You would be claimant. Casino would be respondent. Judge won't be the one asking questions. You would make a claim and support it with evidence. They would respond to you. But they would only have to respond to claims the court found valid.

You claiming they are mean and won't let me in cause they don't like me is unlikely to be upheld. You would need to show illegal discrimination against a protected class AND that you fit that class. Customers we can't afford due to past behavior are not a ptotected class.

Really -- the worst post. Ok, your opinion, you're entitled to it. As I am to mine. I don't think it's the worst post.

How am I discrediting others' posts. What solid facts were stated by anyone that I discredited. I actually agreed the casino could possibly ban him technically. Others posted they're opinion that Borgata/MGM actually would ban him. That is not a fact since it hasn't happened. I stated I didn't think they would. Both are opinions.

Correlation to McD -- easy and obvious correlation (in my opinion), but I will state it for you. The premise of many people saying he would be banned is that a BUSINESS would be inclined to ban someone who sues them. I gave examples of businesses that didn't ban people that sued them. If you now want to add qualifiers that casinos ban people who sue them, you can, but other than the 1 post above about Hardrock, no one has provided other examples of people being banned for suing them (and even the Hardrock example was not for something the dealer did wrong). (But if in fact there are many proven examples, I will admit I was wrong).

You showed why it might be hard to ban someone from McD, but conviently didn't show why United didn't ban the passenger. They surely could ban a passenger much easier than a casino could, considering you have to give a name every time you book a ticket.

Please enlighten me and choose your favorite part.

And it's all incredible -- even where I say he could technically be banned? Or that McD didn't ban the customer or United didn't ban the passenger.

Unfortunately threatening to close the thread only facilitates it's demise, because trolls, as funny and creative as they are, like having imagined power over people, and hence threads.

Thus why I recd to OP he stop posting here about this and allow his lawyer take charge. But the entire firm seems to be oot.

Since I've got some experience in getting people banned from a casino, I'll throw in my two cents.

Which is what it's worth.

Yes,the casino can ban him.

They may not choose to do so.

They don't have to tell him either.

I'd say if this doesn't go to court,he will settle and some notation of agreement to not go to their establishment anymore along with a non disclosure agreement.

Could also include their sister properties as well.

So OP, be sure to read and understand all correspondence pertaining to this case.

It may not be right, it may not be fair, but it's how the world operates.

As an aside, your temperament in your subsequent postings aren't doing you any favors.

But I do wish you are made whole and the person that cheated you is held responsible.







Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

Agree 100%

If op handled it differently and got a lawyer and a non-disclosure w/o posting on the net could op have potentially gotten the money and play in the casino?

Possible, but doubtful.

It can still be negotiated by his legal representation, but it's almost standard in regards to casinos to ban the person who has a claim against them.

It's just smart business practice.

Don't do business with someone who has filed suit against you.




Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

Why is it smart business?

I could see it if the suit was frivolous, but if you were in fact at fault why would having paid a judgment against someone make them a bad customer in the future?

Either way, if the suit was successful or not, the casino would not want the customer back spreading his story to anyone he/she rubbed shoulders with. Bad publicity either way. If successful, the story would make the casino look awful as a legitimate business. If not successful, the litigant would likely come back and rail to anyone and everyone about how he got screwed. Changing the story of course to make it look even worse and make himself seem even more deserving of millions of dollars of the casino's money.

Aurora Tom pretty much explained it,there's very little upside doing business with a client you have had a litigious relationship that was contentious.



Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk