“Under Texas law, when a government contractor is sued for complying with
directions it received from an entity with governmental immunity, the contractor is
likewise entitled to immunity.
That is the case here. Under both the Government Code and its contracts
with GTECH, the TLC alone has authority over all aspects of Texas Lottery
games. The TLC determined the final specifications for its “Fun 5’s” tickets, and
Nettles admits that all of her complaints about the “Fun 5’s” tickets arise from
decisions made by the TLC, not GTECH. Nettles further admits that GTECH
followed the TLC’s directions to the letter. Accordingly, GTECH has immunity.
Nettles cannot avoid that conclusion by arguing that GTECH could be held
liable without causing the government to make unforeseen expenditures. That
argument was not preserved for this Court’s review, and it is based on a misreading
of the authority she cites.
Nor can Nettles defeat GTECH’s immunity by arguing that GTECH was
required to exercise independent discretion because it owed a duty of “reasonable
care” when deciding whether to implement or reject the TLC’s changes to the
working papers. GTECH is contractually obligated to implement the TLC’s
decisions, and nothing in its contracts with the TLC requires—or even allows—
GTECH to second-guess those decisions. Moreover, Nettles’s insistence that
GTECH owed a duty of “reasonable care” cannot be reconciled with her decision
to abandon her claims of negligence and replace them with claims of fraud.
The trial court correctly granted GTECH’s plea to the jurisdiction. This
Court should affirm.”
A copy of GTECH’s detailed arguments and supporting case law can be viewed in GTECH’s Brief of Appellee.
The post GTECH Files Appellee’s Brief in Dallas Court of Appeals first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>
Mary Pat and I are in Austin preparing for the depositions of management level employees of GTECH Corporation, the operator of the Texas Lottery as well as the deposition of Gary Grief, the Executive Director of the Texas Lottery. We are proud to be fighting for the rights of over 1,000 fine Texas consumers.
The post Fun 5’s Depositions Continue first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>The dispute revolves around Game 5 of the Fun 5’s game. The instructions on the ticket read as follows:
- “Reveal three “5” symbols in any one row, column or diagonal, win PRIZE in PRIZE box. Reveal a Money Bag “ ” symbol in the 5X BOX, win 5 times that PRIZE.”
The official regulations for the Fun 5’s game read as follows:
- “GAME 5: If a player reveals three “5” Play Symbols in any one row, column or diagonal, the player wins the PRIZE in the PRIZE box. If a player reveals a “MONEY BAG Play Symbol in the 5X BOX, the player wins 5 times that PRIZE.
The lawsuit alleges that GTECH programmed its computers to reject tickets as losers unless they met a requirement not found in the instructions or in the official game regulations as follows:
- Reveal three “5” symbols in any one row, column or diagonal, win PRIZE in PRIZE box. [And, if you also] Reveal a Money Bag “ ” symbol in the 5X BOX, win 5 times
that[the] PRIZE [won].
The suit alleges that GTECH was negligent when it programmed its computers to reject tickets as losers that should have been declared winners. The suit also alleges that once GTECH learned of its mistake, it intentionally continued to use the non-conforming computer program to tortiously interfere with the expectancy the lottery players had of receiving the prizes they had been promised.
The suit was filed in Travis County state district court by Houston attorney Richard LaGarde and by his co-counsel, Manfred Sternberg. Click here to read a copy of the petition.
The post $248 million suit filed against operator of Texas Lottery first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>Averaging more than $3 million in weekly ticket sales since it was introduced on September 1st, the Fun 5’s scratch-off game was one of the Texas Lottery’s top selling games. However, angry consumers began complaining to their State Representatives when their winning tickets were rejected as losers. On October 21st, the Lottery Commission announced it would be prematurely ending the game because of what it described as “confusion regarding certain aspects of this popular game.”
The dispute arises from the language used on Game 5 of the Fun 5’s tickets. The instructions appear to provide two separate and independent ways to win a prize. “Reveal three “5” symbols in any one row, column or diagonal, win PRIZE in PRIZE box. Reveal a Money Bag symbol in the 5X BOX, win 5 times that PRIZE.” Lottery officials now say that in order to win 5 times the prize, you must not only reveal a Money Bag symbol, you must also reveal three “5” symbols in a row.
Richard LaGarde, one of the attorneys for Ms. Nettles and for over 400 additional lottery players, argues that the lottery is not being fair to lottery players. “These folks spent their hard-earned money for lottery tickets. They were promised that if their ticket revealed a Money Bag symbol they would win five times the prize amount shown on the ticket. Now the lottery commission wants to take away their winnings by adding the words “If you also” to the second sentence of the game instructions. That’s not fair to the hundreds of folks who truly believe they have winning tickets. You don’t re-write the rules to a game after you’ve already taken the consumers’ money. If the lottery is not open and fair in all respects, it loses legitimacy in the eyes of the people and their elected representatives.”
Judge Yelenosky’s ruling did not comment on the merits of Nettles’ case. It simply means that Nettles and hundreds of her fellow lottery players will now have to file suit to find out who is responsible for choosing the language used on the tickets and for programming the lottery’s computers to reject their winning tickets.
The post Judge Rejects Request for Pre-Suit Discovery from Texas Lottery first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>