Harvey v. Caesars Entertainment Operating Co., Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
790 F. App’x 582 (2019)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
John Harvey (plaintiff) gambled and lost at casinos affiliated with Caesars Entertainment Operating Company (collectively, the casinos) (defendants). Harvey executed markers—a casino-industry term for checks negotiable from a gambler’s bank account—totaling $3 million. Harvey understood that if he did not pay the markers within 30 days, the casinos could deposit the markers with his bank. Harvey did not pay the markers, asked one casino to delay depositing the markers, and stopped payment on the markers when the casino eventually deposited them. That casino unsuccessfully tried again to obtain payment and then referred Harvey to the district attorney’s office, which charged Harvey with violating Louisiana’s worthless-check statute. The statute prohibited knowingly and fraudulently issuing an instrument from an account that had insufficient funds to pay the instrument in full. Harvey subsequently agreed to satisfy his marker debt with the referring casino, and a court dismissed the criminal charges. Harvey sued the casinos in federal court, alleging claims including malicious prosecution, false arrest, and abuse of process. One of the casinos, Horseshoe Tunica, counterclaimed to recover $850,000 in marker debt. Following discovery, the casinos moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion and invited Horseshoe Tunica to apply for attorney’s fees. Horseshoe Tunica requested over $400,000, but the court rejected the fee application. The same attorney had represented Horseshoe Tunica and the other casinos, and the court claimed that Horseshoe Tunica had not identified which fees were incurred solely for Horseshoe Tunica’s benefit. Horseshoe Tunica then identified $21,986 in fees incurred for its sole benefit but asserted that it was also entitled to fees associated with defending the claims asserted against all of the casinos. The court ultimately awarded no fees. Harvey and Horseshoe Tunica cross-appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jolly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.