Fulltilt Poker successful in court

4/27/10 - The legal team at major online poker firm Full Tilt Poker.com will be celebrating a successful week in which the company prevailed in two US courtrooms.
 
In the first case, two California players who were banned and had winnings confiscated failed in their civil case against the giant poker site. Lary Kennedy and Greg Omotoy sued Full Tilt last year for false advertising, libel and fraud, alleging that the company had unlawfully seized over $80 000 from their accounts after accusations that they were illegally using bot software.
 
Full Tilt dismissed the action as"frivolous" and "baseless", claiming: “Both of these player accounts were appropriately terminated for multiple violations of the express terms and conditions governing fair and lawful play in the Full Tilt Poker online virtual cardroom, including their own admissions of using multiple accounts.” The company also drew attention to the lack of cooperation received from the claimants during its investigation.
 
The case was thrown out by the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.
 
In Kentucky, the parent group of Full Tilt Poker, a company titled Pocket Kings, obtained at the least temporary relief from a legal motion by the state's lawyers seeking discovery, a legal tactic designed to uncover documents, more information and other evidence from a disputing entity in pre-trial legal manouevreing.
 
The process was the latest in a series of moves by Kentucky's outsourced lawyers which are rooted in the state's so far unsuccessful attempt to achieve legal backing for its seizure two years ago of 141 international domain names.
 
Ironically, the relief - on the grounds that Pocket Kings had not been properly served in a timely fashion and therefore no discovery could be permitted - was given in the Franklin Circuit Court, where the original seizure order had been granted by a local judge.
 
That does not mean that Pocket Kings is free of the discovery threat, however, as the wording of the order illustrates: "As of entry of this order, the only named defendant, Pocket Kings Ltd, has not been served.  The Court finds that allowing discovery here would be premature until Pocket Kings has been served, and until the Court has reviewed any responsive pleadings that Pocket Kings may file."