Quote:
Originally Posted by poiulkjh
the dumbest thing Matt could do is trying to sue Leon lol
Matt is Aussie, Leon is Czech and theres no way to prove that Matt really gave Leon the money, theres no formal contract involved
so Nevada laws have nothing to do here, Nevada law cant force Leon to pay a cent
probably Leon was planning to pay Matt on his casino, giving him chips there, usually thats what poker room owners do when they lose money
but now after suing I bet Matt wont receive anything, you dont want to be an enemy of someone who owns you money lol thats basic stuff in the poker world
I disagree, there are sources of evidence, aside from the Plaintiff's statements, which would be probative of whether some transactions took place:
1. The game was played at the Aria, so tapes likely exist. Not to mention the Aria personnel who were working the game, floor or surveillance.
2. The Aria certainly can provide evidence of "some" transactions, both the game and issuance of chips would be regulated. Cue Gaming and FinCEN if there is "no way to prove" how Leon got the chips he lost to Matt or how Mat was able to cash out. (I suspect that chips were likely passed over at the time of the alleged loans, rather than new cash being passed and more chips bought.)
Nevada laws certainly apply as the alleged transactions were done in Nevada.
Filing a Complaint and successfully serving a named Defendant are different things.
Interesting story to watch develop, if there is service of the complaint and a defendant reply or motion to dismiss filed.
I practice law here. I don't know what the law is in the Czech Republic or Australia or wherever you are posting from, but I suspect the elements of an agreement were sufficiently alleged under the laws in this State.