Buisier v. The R.I. Div. of Lotteries

• Decision Date: 02 May 2022
• Docket Number: PC-2021-07468
• Parties: NASSER BUISIER, Plaintiff, v. THE RHODE ISLAND DIVISION OF LOTTERIES, Mark A. Furcolo, in his capacity as Administrator, UTGR, INC., a/k/a TWIN RIVER CASINO d/b/a BALLY'S TWIN RIVER LINCOLN CASINO RESORT, TWIN RIVER MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., and AMERICAN WAGERING, INC., d/b/a SPORTSBOOK RHODE ISLAND, Defendants.
• Court: Rhode Island Superior Court

NASSER BUISIER, Plaintiff, v. THE RHODE ISLAND DIVISION OF LOTTERIES, Mark A. Furcolo, in his capacity as Administrator, UTGR, INC., a/k/a TWIN RIVER CASINO d/b/a BALLY'S TWIN RIVER LINCOLN CASINO RESORT, TWIN RIVER MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., and AMERICAN WAGERING, INC., d/b/a SPORTSBOOK RHODE ISLAND, Defendants.

No. PC-2021-07468

Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence

May 2, 2022

For Plaintiff: Meredith L. Thommen, Esq.

For Defendants: Kyle Zambarano, Esq.; Brendan F. Ryan, Esq.

DECISION

STERN J.

Before the Court is Defendants'-The State Lottery Division of the State of Rhode Island Department of Revenue (R.I Lottery), UTGR, Inc., f/k/a Twin River d/b/a Bally's Twin River Lincoln Casino Resort (TR Lincoln), and Twin River Management Group, Inc. (TR Management) (collectively Defendants)-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Nasser Buisier (Plaintiff) filed a timely objection. Jurisdiction is pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.

I Facts and Travel

On or about August 2, 2020, Plaintiff purchased multiple sports betting lottery tickets from Defendants. (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 12.) According to Plaintiff, two of the sports betting lottery tickets purchased were deemed to be winning tickets for specific sports bets, which, pursuant to applicable rules governing sports wagers, Defendants are responsible for paying. Id. ¶¶ 13, 15; Defs.' Answer ¶ 13. Sometime between learning about the two winning tickets and attempting to collect the cash prize from those tickets, the alleged winning tickets were "accidentally mutilated, altered, destroyed, or deemed otherwise unreadable, illegible, incomplete, or defective." (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 16.) Relying on outdated "House Rules" posted online (the Online Rules), Plaintiff took photographs of the winning tickets prior to their accidental destruction and attempted to collect his prize by presenting this photographic evidence to Defendants. Id. ¶ 14. According to Plaintiff, the Online Rules provided that "photographic evidence of purchased tickets would be honored." Id. ¶¶ 14, 17. Plaintiff claims that he made multiple demands for payment within the applicable one-year timeframe and presented this photographic evidence of his alleged winning tickets to Defendants. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Defendants, however, refused to pay Plaintiff his alleged winnings, citing the updated version of the House Rules which had become effective in May 2019 (the May 2019 House Rules), and which presently govern sports wagers. Id. ¶¶ 18-19; Defs.' Answer ¶¶ 18-19.

Based on Defendants' refusal to honor Plaintiff's photographic evidence of his alleged winning tickets Plaintiff filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that he purchased two winning sports betting lottery tickets. (Pl.'s Compl. 3-4.) Plaintiff also asserted additional allegations including unjust enrichment, breach of contract, contractual breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, contractual bad faith, and bad faith pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 9-1-33, based on Defendants' refusal to honor Plaintiff's photographic evidence. Id. at 4-7. After filing an Answer, Defendants filed a joint Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as a matter of law because Plaintiff "undisputedly failed to comply with the sports wagering rules that require him to present his wagering tickets in order to receive payout on a sports wager." (Defs.' Mem. of Law in Supp. J. on the Pleadings (Defs.' Mem.) 1.) In response, Plaintiff filed an Objection, arguing that Plaintiff took a photograph of the tickets "in reliance on the [Online] Rules displayed on Defendant Twin River's website at the time of purchase[, ]" which, according to Plaintiff, "offered a remedy for tickets that were 'lost, stolen, or otherwise unreadable.'" (Mem. in Supp. of Pl.'s Obj. to Defs.' Mot. for J. on the Pleadings (Pl.'s Obj.) 1.) Based on this, Plaintiff claims that "Defendants refused to honor [Plaintiff's] winning tickets citing another version of the rules." Id. at 2. The Court's decision follows.

II Standard of Review

A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) '"provides [the] trial court with the means of disposing of a case early in the litigation process when the material facts are not in dispute after the pleadings have been closed and only questions of law remain to be decided."' Premier Home Restoration, LLC v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 245 A.3d 745, 748 (R.I. 2021) (quoting Nugent v. State Public Defender's Office, 184 A.3d 703, 706 (R.I. 2018)) (further quotations omitted); see also Chase v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 160 A.3d 970, 973 (R.I. 2017); Chariho Regional School District v. Gist, 91 A.3d 783, 787 (R.I. 2014).

When faced with such a motion, the Court "review[s] the granting of a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings under the same test we utilize to review a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss." Premier Home Restoration, 245 A.3d at 748 (citing Nugent, 184 A.3d at 706). That is, '"[f]or the purposes of our review[, ] a Rule 12(c) motion is tantamount to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and the same test is applicable to both []."' Chase, 160 A.3d at 973 (quoting Gist, 91 A.3d at 787) (further quotations omitted); see also Collins v. Fairways Condominiums Association, 592 A.2d 147, 148 (R.I. 1991). "[T]he sole function of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the complaint." Barrette v. Yakavonis, 966 A.2d 1231, 1234 (R.I. 2009). "Therefore, a judgment on the pleadings 'may be granted only when it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that a party would not be entitled to relief from the defendant under any set of conceivable facts that could be proven in support of its claim."' Premier Home Restoration, 245 A.3d at 748 (quoting Nugent, 184 A.3d at 706-07); see also Chase, 160 A.3d at 973.^[1]

III

Analysis^[2]

A

Count III (Breach of Contract)

Defendants argue that Count III (Breach of Contract) of Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as a matter of law because taking all of the facts as alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint as true, there is no breach of contract. (Defs.' Mem. 6.) Specifically Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to demonstrate that Defendants had an affirmative obligation to pay Plaintiff the cash prize from his sports wager because the contract terms require Plaintiff to present his winning wagering ticket to collect the prize. Id. at 8. Defendants point to § 1(B) of the May 2019 House Rules which, according to Defendants, are visible on Defendant Twin River Casino's website and at the retail sportsbook where Plaintiff initially placed his wagers. Id. at 6, 8. The relevant section of the May 2019 House Rules states that "[n]o winning wager will be paid without the customer copy of the wagering ticket. No reproductions or photos of wagering tickets will be accepted. Management is not responsible for lost, stolen, altered or unreadable tickets." Id. at 8. Defendants argue that the May 2019 House Rules govern the terms of the contract and consequently, Defendants are not obligated to pay Plaintiff because he cannot produce his wagering ticket. Id.

Plaintiff opposes Defendants' position, citing an older version of the House Rules-the Online Rules-which, as mentioned above, contained an exception allowing customers to collect their winnings without presenting their wagering ticket. (Pl.'s Obj. 1-2.)

Specifically, according to Plaintiff, the Online Rules "offer[ed] a remedy for tickets that were lost, stolen, or otherwise unreadable" and "afforded an alternative method to claim a prize without the physical tickets" by honoring lost, stolen, or unreadable tickets so long as the claimant could verify his or her ownership of such tickets. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff argues that he took photographs of his winning tickets before they were destroyed in reliance on the exception contained in the Online Rules and, therefore, the Online Rules govern the contract. Id. at 1-8. Consequently, Plaintiff argues that Defendants are obligated to honor Plaintiff's destroyed winning tickets because he presented sufficient photographic evidence to establish his ownership of those tickets, as required by the Online Rules. Id. at 2.

To establish a viable breach of contract claim, '"the plaintiff must prove both the existence and breach of a contract, and that the defendant's breach thereof caused the plaintiff's damages."' Vicente v. Pinto's Auto & Truck Repair, LLC, 230 A.3d 588, 592 (R.I. 2020) (quoting Fogarty v. Palumbo, 163 A.3d 526, 541 (R.I. 2017)); see also Petrarca v. Fidelity and Casualty Insurance Co., 884 A.2d 406, 410 (R.I. 2005) ("[the plaintiff] must not only prove both the existence and breach of a contract, he also must prove that the defendant's breach thereof caused him damages.")

As a threshold matter, the Court agrees with Defendants that the May 2019 House Rules govern the contract at issue here. As Defendants point out, the Rhode Island Department of Revenue's State Lottery Division is responsible for promulgating the Rhode Island Lottery Rules and Regulations that set forth guidelines for lottery operations, such as prize payments.^[3] Those regulations-including the applicable House Rules in the instant matter-carry the force of state law. See R.I. Const. art. 6, § 15; supra note 3. When lottery customers place sports wagers, the House Rules become contractual terms, and the wager is subject to those terms. Valente v. Rhode Island Lottery Commission, 544 A.2d 586, 590 (R.I. 1988). Pla...