Borgata v. Ivey

• Baccarat = baccara = punto banco = a card game about banking = a casino game
• Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa = "Borgata" = plaintiff = a casino in Atlantic City = Marina District Development Co., LLC
• Phillip Ivey = "Ivey" = a world-renowned professional poker player
• Ivey approached Borgata to play high-stakes baccarat
• Ivey requested several accommodations including
  1. a dealer who spoke Mandarin Chinese,
  2. an 8-deck shoe of Gemaco cards, &
  3. automatic card shuffler
  4. “Kelly” Sun, one of the most successful female gamblers in history, be seated next to him
• Ivey & Sun were engaging in edge sorting
• Ivey won $10,000,000 (10 million) in 2012 at Borgata
• Borgata learned that the London casino Crockfords had lost millions of dollars to Ivey & had accused Ivey of a scam

Borgata sued Ivey for

1. fraud &
2. material mis-representation of "superstition", &
3. breach of contract for not abiding by the New Jersey Casino Control Act

1. Does a gambler's failure to play in compliance with state gambling law constitute a breach of contract?
2. Is a party's failure to disclose reasons for a request a material mis-representation amounting to fraud?

1. Yes. A gambler's failure to comply with state gambling law can constitute a breach of contract with a casino.
2. No. A failure to disclose motives that doesn't lead to deterimental reliance isn't a material mis-representation amounting to fraud.

--

• Ivey has breached his contract with Borgata. (Borgata won on the breach of contract.)
• Ivey hasn't mis-represented by citing superstition. Believing in Ivey's superstitions isn't detrimental reliance. (Ivey won the on the fraud claim.)

Judge Hillman: Under the New Jersey Casino Control Act, it is unlawful to use marked cards. The Act doesn't define marked cards; marked cards are done by physically altering the cards. Ivey was using the cards in a prohibited manner.

In this New Jersey court's opinion, edge sorting is cheating.