The attorney for the 88 plaintiffs suing alleged poker cheater Mike Postle filed two court documents on Monday, both disputing the defendant’s request to have the civil suit dismissed.
Postle, a Stones Gambling Hall pro, was accused in September of cheating during “Stones Live” streams. He is alleged to have gained access to his opponent’s hole cards, thus making his decisions easier. Many poker fans on social media speculate that Justin Kuraitis, the former “Stones Live” production manager, worked in conjunction with Postle on the alleged scam.
Kuraitis, like Postle, faces a $10 million lawsuit for, as the plaintiffs argue, failing to operate a fair game of poker. He, along with the casino he represents, recently filed a Motion to Dismiss the civil suit. Maurice “Mac” VerStandig, attorney for the plaintiffs filed a rebuttal to that motion on Monday.
Court to Decide if Casino Responsible for Postle Alleged Cheating
VerStandig argues that Postle isn’t the only one responsible for the alleged cheating scandal. He believes the casino and the “Stones Live” producer (Kuraitis) deserve much of the blame, and he’s attempting to hold those individuals responsible in a civil court.
Two of those defendants, Kuraitis and King’s Casino Management Corp, which owns Stones Gambling Hall, recently filed a Motion to Dismiss the case in the United States District Court Eastern District of California. They argue the casino doesn’t have a duty to protect players from other players cheating. Furthermore, the casino argues that the plaintiffs haven’t proven their specific financial loss.
Plaintiffs Fire Back
In response to the Motion to Dismiss, VerStanding filed two new court documents on Monday. The first, a six-page opposition to Kuraitis asking the court to dismiss the case. And the second, a 72-page document directed at the casino’s dismissal request.
In Monday’s court filings, VerStandig writes: “the Motion asserts Mr. Kuraitis cannot be liable to Mesdames (Veronica) Brill and (Kasey Lynn) Mills for fraud.” He then disputes that argument, claiming Kuraitis personally made a “series of demonstrably counterfactual statements” to Brill, the whistleblower, in regard to the alleged cheating scandal.
“As noted in their opposition to the motions filed by both Stones and Mr. Postle, the Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to amend their pleading should further allegations be necessary to conform to the pleading rigors of this Honorable Court. The Plaintiffs set forth, in both of those respective opposition briefs, extensive but non-exhaustive lists of the additional factual matter they are prepared to allege if necessary,” the court document read.
VerStandig then asked the court to deny the motion to have the civil case dismissed.