Aretakis v. Caesars Entm't, Rio Secco Golf Club, Caesars Entm't Operating Co.
| Decision Date | 23 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | 16 Civ. 8751 (KPF) |
| Parties | JOHN ARETAKIS, Plaintiff, v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, RIO SECCO GOLF CLUB, CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT OPERATING COMPANY, CAESARS PALACE, BUTCH HARMON, MILLIONAIRE MAKER, and NIKE GOLF, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
This dispute stems from a Las Vegas golf contest that allegedly offered the opportunity to win a $1 million prize by making a hole-in-one (the "Hole-in-One Contest" or the "Contest"). Plaintiff John Aretakis paid for himself and three of his colleagues to compete in the Contest; as fate would have it, one of his colleagues made a hole-in-one. As fate would also have it, the rules of the Contest had fine print: a participant who made a hole-in-one won only the right to return to Las Vegas to compete in a second hole-in-one competition before winning the $1 million prize. Plaintiff balked and, after his golf-adept colleague sought to assign any rights he had in the prize to Plaintiff, Plaintiff filed the instant suit against a number of entities he alleged to be complicit in a hole-in-one fraud.
The named defendants include Caesars Entertainment Corporation, incorrectly named as "Caesars Entertainment"; Caesars Entertainment Operating Company; Desert Palace, Inc., doing business as Caesars Palace (collectively, the "Caesars Defendants"); and Rio Development Company, incorrectly named as Rio Secco Golf Club (with the Caesars Defendants, "Defendants"). The Amended Complaint also lists three defendants that Plaintiff identified as appearing on promotional materials for the Hole-in-One Contest: Butch Harmon, Millionaire Maker, and Nike Golf. Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion.
Despite Plaintiff's sprawling, 370-paragraph Amended Complaint, the facts he alleges are fairly straightforward: On January 31, 2016, while on a business trip, Plaintiff and three acquaintances, including Adam Neary, playeda round of golf at the Rio Secco Golf Club in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5-6, 59). At the seventh hole, "a young woman working for Rio Secco" informed the group that for a $20 fee, a golfer could enter the "million-dollar hole-in-one challenge," in which a golfer who hits a ball from the tee to the cup in one swing "would get ... a million-dollar prize." (Id. at ¶¶ 60, 66). Plaintiff also noticed an eight- to ten-foot sign near the seventh hole reading, "Welcome to the Rio Secco [M]illion-[D]ollar [H]ole." (Id. at ¶ 66). Thereafter, "Plaintiff paid the $20 entry fee for all [four] golfers." (Id. at ¶ 69; see also id. at ¶ 67 ()).
After Plaintiff paid the entry fees but before Neary attempted to swing, Neary offered to reimburse Plaintiff for the $20 entry fee or to give "Plaintiff a half interest in the contest and the million-dollar hole-in-one prize." (Am. Compl. ¶ 69; see id. at ¶¶ 70-71). Plaintiff accepted Neary's offer for "50% of the million-dollar prize," if Neary succeeded (Id. at ¶ 70). Sure enough, Neary made a hole-in-one. (See id. at ¶¶ 61, 75, 107). Plaintiff further alleges that after Neary made the shot but before he and Neary had verified that the ball landed in the cup, "Neary again confirmed [Plaintiff's] 50% interest" in the million-dollar prize. (Id. at ¶ 82). The Rio Secco employee working at the seventh hole then confirmed that the ball had landed in the cup. (Id. at ¶ 108).
The foursome's celebration was short-lived; the Rio Secco employee told Plaintiff that he and Neary "do not get the million dollars, you only win an all-expense paid trip back to Las Vegas to compete in a competition at RioSecco to try to win the $1 million." (Am. Compl. ¶ 109). A few holes later, another Rio Secco employee working at a drink cart referred to the contest as "kind of a bait and switch," because it leads golfers "to think that a hole-in-one gets [the golfer] the million dollars." (Id. at ¶ 111). After the foursome completed the golf round, Neary was presented with a four-to-five-foot $1 million novelty check. (Id. at ¶ 112). The check bore apparent endorsements from "Millionaire Maker," "Butch Harmon," "Petron Tequila," and "Nike Golf." (Id.).
Plaintiff contends that after Neary made the shot, "the Defendants" — presumably Rio Secco employees — directed Plaintiff and Neary to the rules printed on Rio Secco's website, which rules provide that a golfer who participates in the Hole-in-One Contest and makes a hole-in-one at the seventh hole would win "an all-expense paid return trip with a companion back to Las Vegas in November 2016 to compete in a hole-in-one challenge with Butch Harmon (Tiger Woods' former golf swing coach), and other [participants] who got a hole-in-one on the [seventh] hole in 2016." (Am. Compl. ¶ 113).
In connection with this motion, the Court has reviewed printouts from Rio Secco's website of the rules applicable to the Hole-in-One Contest (the "Contest Rules" or the "Rules").2 One section, entitled "Entry," provides that "[p]articipation in [the] Rio Secco $1,000,000 Hole Main Event [is] securedthrough: a) witnessed hole-in-one at Rio Secco on hole #7 (witness must be designated Rio Secco team employee, specifically assigned to witness hole #7 during predetermined schedule)"; or "b) random drawing conducted monthly during promotion period by Rio Secco management." (Contest Rules). A separate provision, entitled "Rio Secco $1,000,000 Hole Prizes," reads as follows:
Plaintiff contends that in addition to the prizes listed on the website, a golfer who prevails in the Hole-in-One Contest would also receive a $500 credit at the Rio Secco golf shop. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 113 ()). And, indeed, the Amended Complaint recites that on January 31, 2016, "Neary and the Plaintiff were given the $500 Pro shop credit," whichPlaintiff believed to be a "bait and switch." (Id. at ¶ 211). More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the $500 credit "appear[ed] to be a gratuitous ruse in a series of conflicting and/or alternative prizes given by the Defendants in order to placate a disgruntled golfer who gets a hole-in-one" that would allow Defendants "to refuse or argue [that] a one million-dollar debt is not owed by the Defendants." (Id. at ¶ 114). Ruse or not, "Plaintiff and Neary ... used [the credit] at the end of the round[.]" (Id. at ¶ 92).
In March 2016, "Caesars and Rio Secco" called Neary to inform him that the companies had rescheduled the second round of the Hole-in-One Contest from November 2016 to June 2016. (Am. Comp. ¶ 140). Neary received another call "in late March or early April 2016" informing him that "because Caesars or Caesars Palace or the Caesars corporate entity" was entering bankruptcy, the company "had to cancel or postpone the all-expense paid return to Las Vegas" for the Hole-in-One Contest. (Id. at ¶ 141).
Soon thereafter, on May 2, 2016, Neary executed a document purporting to assign to Plaintiff "the entire claim and rights to the million dollars, the million-dollar hole-in-one challenge, and the prizes associated therewith." (Am. Compl. ¶ 142). The document is entitled "Assignment of Rights," and claims to "assign [Plaintiff] all of [Neary's] claims, judgments, complaints, actions, and prizes and/or settlements" against "Caesars and Rio Secco (and all other possible Defendants involved)" stemming from Neary's participation in the Hole-in-One Contest. (Neary Assignment 1-2). The Assignment further recitesthat the day after the round of golf, Neary "agreed to assign all [his] rights, including the right to collect any money from or file a legal action against Rio Secco and Caesars to [Plaintiff]," and that Plaintiff "said he would go back to the course to further investigate." (Id. at 1). Neary explained his desire to assign his rights to Plaintiff because he "did not want to be further upset and distracted with such a drastic and misleading event, and colossal rip-off." (Id.). The document also provides that Neary made the assignment in exchange "for One ($1.00) Dollar and other good and valuable consideration" (id. at 2); Plaintiff clarifies in his submissions to the Court that "this is standard, legal boilerplate that serves to support an assignment, and nothing else," and, more particularly, that it is "not evidence of the purchase of a legitimate debt for a considerable sum of money" (Pl. Opp. 8).
Plaintiff alleges that because Neary had already agreed to give Plaintiff half of his winnings before making the shot, this later assignment served the dual purposes of memorializing that preexisting exchange and transferring to Plaintiff the remainder of the right to those winnings. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 186-91, 217). Plaintiff thus...
To continue reading
Request your trial