The time is now 5:26 am
You last visited
April 23, 2024, 2:16 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
Jun 6, 2006, 7:06 pm (37 comments)
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 an oral agreement that everyone would be included whenever they pooled money to buy tickets.
The winners — six lab technicians and a receptionist at the Kaiser Permanente medical office in Garden Grove — rejected De La Cruz's claims.
They said it was the first time they had bought tickets together, and that it had been almost a year since any of them had pooled money with De La Cruz.
The Nov. 15 jackpot was the second largest in state history and one of the largest in the United States.
The winners, who each put in $3 for 21 tickets, opted for a lump-sum payment and each received about $21 million.
AP
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.
What a shock.
"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,
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.
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.
I hope the lawsuit comes to an end soon in favor of De La Cruz.
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 winnings because one of the pool member didn't cover her when she didn't contribute money to the pool.
There may be people here at LP who may be thinking by contributing ideas and posting numbers that they will be entitled to a share of any large jackpot won by another member if they can locate him.
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 winnings because one of the pool member didn't cover her when she didn't contribute money to the pool.
There may be people here at LP who may be thinking by contributing ideas and posting numbers that they will be entitled to a share of any large jackpot won by another member if they can locate him.
You hit that proverbial nail* on the head (ouch!) RJOh. I once gave in to someone who did not deserve some money not a lottery only because I didn't want to wait & battle it out in court. I always say I'd like to join a pool, but now I'm starting to change my mind. The other point you made is also well taken. If the courts rule in his favor, everyone who works there might then want their share. I don't think he'll win.
*De spijker op de kop slaan is the Dutch Proverb I found. Ins Schwarze treffen (to hit in the black) comes from archery. I wasn't sure where that expression came from. Thought it was just an American cliche. Ah, what would I do without Google? I know, I'd be in bed sleeping.
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 you feel for someone to drag you through a legal process after such an exciting moment in your life - all because they are rooten on the inside with greed, jeaolousy and envy! Think on it! You wouldn't like it one bit!
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 me a email from her stating that she was no longer going to be playing til after summer and sent one back to REQ HER TO please send me in writing that she wants back in and the date she wants back in on.. I do not PLAY with that crap..... I NOTE EVERYTHING if they dont like it they can join a different pool is the way that I look at it .. but the people in my pools love that I am this THORO because they KNOW that there protected against anyone taking ANY of THEIR money
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 me a email from her stating that she was no longer going to be playing til after summer and sent one back to REQ HER TO please send me in writing that she wants back in and the date she wants back in on.. I do not PLAY with that crap..... I NOTE EVERYTHING if they dont like it they can join a different pool is the way that I look at it .. but the people in my pools love that I am this THORO because they KNOW that there protected against anyone taking ANY of THEIR money
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! =)
"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 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 not there really was an agreement, and what the agreement was, is what the dispute is about. Seven people buying 21 tickets is a good indication that when they bought the tickets they didn't intend to share any winnings with an eighth person, but their intent at the time would be meaningless if there was a valid previous agreement.
Apparently this group didn't have a written agreement, and now they're getting exactly what they should have expected.
The only winners will be the lawyers.
to me since he wasn't there to contribute he have NO RIGHT to any of the jackpot.
"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 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 not there really was an agreement, and what the agreement was, is what the dispute is about. Seven people buying 21 tickets is a good indication that when they bought the tickets they didn't intend to share any winnings with an eighth person, but their intent at the time would be meaningless if there was a valid previous agreement.
Apparently this group didn't have a written agreement, and now they're getting exactly what they should have expected.
Seems even more prudent for every pool to state that every draw is a separate stand alone agreement among participants which begins when money is collected for a specific drawing among those listed as paying and does not carry forward to any future drawing.
That way it is a separate entity unto itself with no ties stated or implied which could potentially link it to any other drawing pool in the future.
Seems simple enough to me, its intent easily understood in court and perhaps would not fatten so many lawyers pockets. The last part is the one I like best!!
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.
My advice to the judge- toss the case. To the letigant- get honest, get real and get lost if you think for one second you deserve to weasel in when you didnt pay! To the REAL winners, may you savor your winnings !
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 winnings because one of the pool member didn't cover her when she didn't contribute money to the pool.
There may be people here at LP who may be thinking by contributing ideas and posting numbers that they will be entitled to a share of any large jackpot won by another member if they can locate him.
This case is worst than I first thought, according to: http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1171259.php
Jennifer Habib, Joyce Onori, Mariza Cuya, Bob Guerzon, Brenda Heller, Kathy Jones and Kate Lynn Juergens – dubbed the “Lucky 7” – won the second-largest lottery jackpot in U.S. history. Each got a lump sum of $20.2 million.
Then, the lawsuits started.
Jonathan De La Cruz sued in December. He wants $39 million.
Robby Telah and Jose Mendoza sued separately in February and asked for the same amount.
All three co-workers had “oral agreements” with the winners to be part of the office pool, said their attorney, Mark Williams.
A fourth co-worker sued the winners and the director of the California Lottery Commission last month. Orleans Victor McFoy calls himself the “Lucky Eighth,” according to his lawsuit. He wants $25 million.
A judge today scheduled a trial for April 2, 2007, in De La Cruz’s lawsuit. Another hearing on the case is scheduled for Tuesday.
“It’s the Lotto winners’ problem,” said Larry Zeman, a lawyer for the “Lucky 7.” “Once you win the lottery, you become a victim to these lawsuits.”
******
It could be years before these winners get access to all their winnings or worst yet they could end up owing their co-workers more than they won. If this doesn't demonstrates why having a lottery pool at your work place is a bad idea, I don't know what does.
Wow...that's crazy. Everyone and their mom is claiming to be a part of that lottery pool.
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 winnings because one of the pool member didn't cover her when she didn't contribute money to the pool.
There may be people here at LP who may be thinking by contributing ideas and posting numbers that they will be entitled to a share of any large jackpot won by another member if they can locate him.
This case is worst than I first thought, according to: http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1171259.php
Jennifer Habib, Joyce Onori, Mariza Cuya, Bob Guerzon, Brenda Heller, Kathy Jones and Kate Lynn Juergens – dubbed the “Lucky 7” – won the second-largest lottery jackpot in U.S. history. Each got a lump sum of $20.2 million.
Then, the lawsuits started.
Jonathan De La Cruz sued in December. He wants $39 million.
Robby Telah and Jose Mendoza sued separately in February and asked for the same amount.
All three co-workers had “oral agreements” with the winners to be part of the office pool, said their attorney, Mark Williams.
A fourth co-worker sued the winners and the director of the California Lottery Commission last month. Orleans Victor McFoy calls himself the “Lucky Eighth,” according to his lawsuit. He wants $25 million.
A judge today scheduled a trial for April 2, 2007, in De La Cruz’s lawsuit. Another hearing on the case is scheduled for Tuesday.
“It’s the Lotto winners’ problem,” said Larry Zeman, a lawyer for the “Lucky 7.” “Once you win the lottery, you become a victim to these lawsuits.”
******
It could be years before these winners get access to all their winnings or worst yet they could end up owing their co-workers more than they won. If this doesn't demonstrates why having a lottery pool at your work place is a bad idea, I don't know what does.
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?
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 separate pool which begins and ends with a particular drawing and does not tie into any previous or future one. Similar principle as having some of today's winning numbers last week's ticket doesn't entitle me to any of todays winnings AND another argument offered here on LP that simply buying a ticket for a drawing gives ownership to winnings in that drawing.
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
my pool signed a contract if you don't pay you don't get paid lol
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
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 separate pool which begins and ends with a particular drawing and does not tie into any previous or future one. Similar principle as having some of today's winning numbers last week's ticket doesn't entitle me to any of todays winnings AND another argument offered here on LP that simply buying a ticket for a drawing gives ownership to winnings in that drawing.
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 the decision becomes the law of the state, and pursuasive in other states. If the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, and the highest court hears it, then, the decision becomes the law on lottery pools in every state.
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
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.
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 separate pool which begins and ends with a particular drawing and does not tie into any previous or future one. Similar principle as having some of today's winning numbers last week's ticket doesn't entitle me to any of todays winnings AND another argument offered here on LP that simply buying a ticket for a drawing gives ownership to winnings in that drawing.
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 the decision becomes the law of the state, and pursuasive in other states. If the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, and the highest court hears it, then, the decision becomes the law on lottery pools in every state.
If you follow lottery disputes, then you might remember this case from a few years back.
http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume01/038/770.htm
Supreme Court Says No Verbal Agreements In Million Dollar Lottery Ticket Dispute
In Alabama the law prohibits the forming of a gambling contract. So due to this technicality Tonda Dickerson, despite agreeing to share her winnings with four co-workers if her ticket won the state lottery, can keep all of the money to herself.
In March 1999, a regular at the chain's Grand Bay restaurant, Edward Seward, handed out lottery tickets to all five workers. The ticket held by Dickerson contained the winning combination of numbers 3-4-7-36-39-40. When Dickerson denied there was an agreement to share the proceeds, the foursome filed a lawsuit.
It was later discovered that Dickerson lied about there not being an agreement, and that the group had made a sharing agreement between themselves, however this doesn’t mean sh** since what they did is illegal in the great state of Alabama.
This cases was covered on CBS 60min news program, even Edward Seward who bought all the tickets and gave them out didn't get a penny.
RJ do you remember if that ruling was done by the US Supreme Court, or the Alabama Supreme Court?
RJ do you remember if that ruling was done by the US Supreme Court, or the Alabama Supreme Court?
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.
my pool signed a contract if you don't pay you don't get paid lol
"that sums up this whole matter" you don't play you can't get paid!!