44 (Rev. 06117) The 44 civil cover sheet and the information co prov1dedb locai rules of court This form, approv hi udicial Conference of the Documentl Filed 05/22/19 purpose 0 initiating the civil docket sheet (SEE WSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) and WILLIAM veer->15 County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff as. C) Attorne {Fir111Name, Address. and Tale ho LA OFFEC 8 OF CONRAD J. BE 1615 SOUTH BROAD STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA19148 215-389?1900 j: Numbeigl .. Q. - GAMIN, LP. dba SUGARHOU 10f13 EX 4 -t nor supplement the 1111 and service of pleadings or other papers as re uired by law, except as nited States in eptember 1974,13 required for the use of the lerk of Court for the .6 o; 1 RUSH STREET GAMIN, JOHN DOE COMPANIES and JANE DOES 1-X Attorneys (3151101491) County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN US. PLAHVTIFF CASES NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place 17111 1'11 0119 Box Only) {For Diversi 1y Cases 0110/) TF .J DE and One Boxfor afendand PTF DEF 1 US. Government 3; Federal Question Plaintiff (US. Govamment No: a Party) Citizen of This State 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 E1 4 of Business In This State CI 2 US. Government 3 4 Diirersity Citizen of Another State 2 Incorporated and Principal Pl?de I3 5 Defendant @11dica1e Citizenship ofPoriies 111 115111 111) of Business In Another SEER Citizen or Subject of a CI 3 I3 3 Foreign Nation Cl 6 Cl 6 1 Foreign Country IV. NATURE OF SU ?11m}; in One Bar 011152) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descri tions. 1 . some: (imam?isms: 110 Insurance WMPFERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY E3 625 Drug Related Seizure Cl 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 CI 375 False Claims Act :1 120 Marine 1:1 310 Airplane 1:1 365 Personal Injury - ofProperty 21 USC 881 1:1 423 Withdrawn ?130 Miller Act Cl 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 15'1r 3729(a)) Cl 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability CI 367 Health Care! Cl 400 State Reapportionment ?3 150 Recovery Ovael'PaYInent El 320 Assault, Libel Pharmaceutical 13 410 Antitrust Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury [3 820 Copyrights 13 430 Banks and Banking 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers? Product Liability 830 Patent CI 450 Commerce [3 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability I3 368 Asbestos Personal Cl 835 Patent - Abbreviated Cl 460 Deportation F?'x Student Loans Cl 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application E3 470 Racketeer In?uenced and I {Exchides Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations 153 Recoiiery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY .. {git-SO? CF 480 Consumer Credit of Vet, an? 5 Bene?ts Cl 350 Motor Vehicle Cl 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards El 861 HIA (1395ft) El 490 CableiSat TV 160 Stockh _?lders Suits E3 355 Motor Vehicle Cl 371 Truth in Lending Act Cl 862 Biack Lung (923) 850 SecuritiesICommoditiesl 190 Other ontract Product Liability 380 Other Personal I3 720 Labor/Management Cl 863 (405(g)) Exchange 195 Con 't Product Liability {3 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 13 390 Other Statutory Actions 196 Franc ?se Injury Cl 335 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 13 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts . Cl 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability El 751 Family and Medical CF 893 Environmental Matters 1 Medical Malpractice Leave Act 13 895 Freedom of Information 790 Other Labor Litigation Act El PIE Land Condenmatiou 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: El "1'91 Employee Retirement El 870 Taxes (US. Plaintiff Cl 896 Arbitration E3 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting Cl 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) 1399 Administrative Procedure [3 230 Rent Lease 8: Ejectment CF 442 Employment [1 510 Motions to Vacate El 871 IRS?Third Party ActiReview or Appeal of 240 Torts to Land 443 Housingl Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision 13 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations Cl 530 General El 950 Constitutionality of 290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. wiDisabilities - I3 535 Death Penalty issr: IMZMIGRATION State Statutes Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Cl 446 Amer. wiDisabilities E3 540 Mandamus Other 13 465 Other Immigration Other [3 550 Civil Rights Actions Cl 443 Education 555 Prison Condition 560 Civii Detainee - Conditions of if Con?nement iV. ORIG (Place an in One Box 01159 lg 1 Origin 1 El 2 Removed from El 3 Remanded from El 4 Reinstated or E3 5 Transferred from El 6 Multidistrict E1 8 Multidistrict Proce ding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation - it (speci?? Transfer Direct File 28 U.S.C. 1332 Cite the US. Civii Statute under which you are ?ling (Do not ciiejurtls?dic?wml stander unless dimming): RE AUSE OFIACTION Brief description of cause: 3? CONTRACT BREACH 3. VII. REQUESTED 1N Cl CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND CHECK YES only if demand in complaint CONIPLAINT: UNDER R. Cv JURY DEMAND: es No RELATED CASE IGE - IF ANY {See instm/cii% A DOCKET ER My 2 2 20?? jg DATE [magi/1.130 in 1 or RECORD 0512212019 .1 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 1? RECEIPT 11 AMOUNT PPLY 1r? JUDGE MAG. JUDGE Fl AI 2 2 2013 Case Document 1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 2 of 13 DESIGNATION FORM 2 2 i {to be used by counsel or pro se indicate the category ofrhe cosefor the purpose of assignment to the appropriate calender) Address OfPIaiH?ff: 2907 S. Franklin Street,Philadelphia, PA and 116 Saddlebrook Ct. Cherry Hill, 08003 Address ofDefendant: 1001 N. Delaware Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19125 1001 N. Delaware Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19125 Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction: RELATED OISE, IFANY: Case Number: Judge: Date Terminated: Civil cases are deemed related when Yes is answered to any ofthe following questions: 1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year Yes I: No- previousty terminated action in this court? 2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit Yes I: No pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? 3. Does this case involve the Validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier Yes I: No numbered case pending or within one year previously terminated action of this court? 4. 1 Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights Yes No case ?ied by the same individual? . . I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is II lat to any cas Per ding quithin One year previously terminated action in this court except as noted above. 2? if?? 34666 DATE: 5/22/2019 . 193% A Horsey JED. it afapplicoble) a 1? CIVIL: (Place :1 ml in one category only) ?7 i A. Federal Question Cases: .0115??in Junirdiction Cases. 1 Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contra ts l. :1 Insurance Contract and Other Contracts 2 FELA 2. Airplane Personal Injury 3 Jones Act~Persona11njury 3. Assault, Defamation El 4 Antitrust 4. Marine Personal Injury 3 Patent [3 5. Motor Vehicie Personal Injury 6 Labor-Management Relations 6. Other Personal Injury (Please specyy): '1 Civil Rights Products Liability El 3 Habeas Corpus ,1 3?2, Products Liability?- Asbestos 9. Securities Act(s) Cases 9.1, All other Diversi es 10. Social Security Review Cases - 11? (Please speef?zj: fraud contract breach 11. All other Federal Question Cases (Please soecyy): ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION (The e?et of this ce?i?corion is to remove the case from eligibility for arbitration) Conead I. Benedetto, Esquire 71 1? {Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, 30:) (2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief; the damages recoverable at this civil action case 1 exceed the sum of $150, 000. 00 exclusive of mterest and costs: 5/3. ll ll 22 201% Relief other than monetary damages is sought. 34666 k/ttomey/ t?L q/Pro Posing Attorney 1CD. ii (ifoppiteuble) I, counsel of record or pro se plaintiff; do hereby certify: 5/22/2019 DATE NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by Jury only if there has been omplianc/ with .KC. {Sgt}. cry. 61:19 (512013) f; i Brno STATES DISTRICT conRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM Anthony Mattia CIVIL ACTION and Wilham Sugarhouse Casino; Vespe Rush Street Gaming, John Does l-X and Jane Does l?X In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of ?ling the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form Specifying the track to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned. SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS: Habeas Corpus Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. 2241 through 2255. Social Security Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits. Arbitration Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2. Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from exposure to asbestos. Special Management .. Cases that do not fall into tracks through that are commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by the court. (See reverse Side of this form for a detailed explanation of Special management cases.) Standard Management .. Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks/ Cx> r? 5122,2019 Conrad I. Benedetto, Esquire Date Attorney?at?law rne'y Mattia ,5 lid William Vespe 215-339-1990 215-271-3910 copradw ene if ?ephone FAX Number i1 Adxilre?ls 1/ ,l (on. man i Kg MAY 22 2mg EKP at Case Document 1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 4 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ANTHONY MATTIA and WILLIAM VESPE Case No. Plaintiffs, Hon. V. 822s SUGARHOUSE HSP GAMING, LP. d/b/a SUGARHOUSE RUSH STREET GAMING, JOHN DOE COMPANIES I- JOHN DOES and JANE DOES Defendants, NOW COMES, Plaintiffs, by and through the Undersigned Celinsel, and hereby brings this Complaint against Defendants as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This diversity action is brought under 28 ESQ 1332. The matter is controversy exceeds $75,000 and all parties to this action are citizens of different States. 2. This Court has pendant jurisdiction over Plaintiff?s state law claiins under 28 ?l367. 3. Venue is proper under 28 1391 in that Plaintiffs are residents of the County of Philadelphia, State of and Defendant Sugarhouse HSP Gaming L.P. d/b/a/ Sugarhouse Casino has its principal business office located in the City of Philadelphia, County of Philadelphia, State of PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Anthony Mattia is a residents of the City of Philadelphia, County of Philadelphia, State of 10. 11. 12. Case Document 1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 5 of 13 . Plaintiff, William Vespe is a residents of the City of Cherry Hill in the County of Camden, in the State of New Jersey. Defendant Sugarhouse HSP Gaming, L.P., d/b/a Sugarhouse Casino (?Sugarhouse?) is a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and at all times had its business offices located at 1080 North Delaware Avenue, Philadelphia,- PA 19125. Sugarhouse is a casino entertainment development located at 1001 N. Delaware Ave, Philadelphia, PA 19125. Defendant Sugarhouse was awarded a casino license on December 20, 2006 by the Gaming Control Board. Defendant Rush Street Gaming, LLC, (?Rush Street?) located at 900 N. Michigan Ave, Ste. 1600, Chicago, IL 60611, is the parent company of Sugarhouse. Rush Street operates casino slot games and table games at casino properties in various communities including'Chicago, IL, Pittsburgh, PA, Schenectady, NY, and Philadelphia, PA. Plaintiff, Anthony Mattia, (Mattia), a frequent wagering customer at Sugarhouse, is a Rush Rewards and Patron Account Member, account number 5610051876. From May 2017 to January 1, 2018, Plaintiff suffered wagering losses in the amount of $147,026.18 at Sugarhouse. Plaintiff, William Vespe, (Vespe), a frequent wagering customer at Sugarhouse, is a Rush Rewards and Patron Account Member, account number 5610162870. From May 2017 to January 1, 2018, Plaintiff suffered wagering losses in the amount of $103,844.00 at Sugarhouse. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Case Document 1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 6 of 13 BACKGROUND On July 26, 2018, the Gaming Control Board penalized Sugarhouse Casino with a fine of $100,000 for dealing cards to patrons using ?illegitimate? decks, or with malfunctioning automatic shuf?ers, over a period of time from May 2017 to January 2018. In hearings before the Gaming Control Board, Bureau of Casino Compliance, Sugarhouse admitted that in a series of occurrence, employees failed to properly address warning lights on automated shuf?ers used at the blackjack, poker, and mini?baccarat - tables in seven incidents between May 2017 and January 2018. Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe were guests at Sugarhouse on various occasions during this period of time. Specifically, table dealers used decks of cards that contained too many cards, too few cards, or in one poker tournament, cards sorted into sequential order, rather than randomly shuf?ed. I As a result of these occurrences, two casino supervisors were terminated, but one was reinstated. By way of example, in May 28, 2017, a casino employee found 16 cards remaining in an automatic shuf?er that had been removed from service. When investigators retraced the cards, they found that the cards were missing from six decks that were used in 46 rounds of blackjack the previous day, involving 122 individual hands. On that date, only one out eight players who weredealt hands from the short deck won. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Case Document 1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 7 of 13 Sugarhouse personnel did not provide the players with any form of reimbursement. On September 3, 2017, a card shuf?er malfunctioned on a blackjack table. On September 23, 2017, during a poker tournament, a dealer mistakenly set the automatic shuf?er not to randomly shuf?e the cards, but to sort them by suit in sequence. The dealer dealt sixteen poker hands before noticing the cards were suited and in sequential order. Once again, Sugarhouse did not provide the players with any form of reimbursement on - either occasion. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Similarly, based on events from December 9, 2017, January 22, 2018 and January 24, 2018, Sugarhouse admitted to additional infractions including illegitimate decks and/or malfunbtioning shuf?ers. As a result of these infractions, Sugarhouse entered into a consent agreement with the Gaming Control Board, Bureau of Casino Compliance, on July 26, 2018 and agreed to pay ?nes in the amount of $87,500.00. A separate violation within this time ?ame involved Sugarhouse dealers deploying decks containing too many cards in a game of Spanish 21, a blackjack game in which 103 were normally removed from play. Casino employees noticed that the 105 had not been removed from several decks only after 27 hands had been dealt, including 18 hands that contained 105. Based on those events, Sugarhouse once again entered into a consent agreement with the Gaming Control Board, Bureau of Casino Compliance, and agreed to pay fines in the amount of$l2,500. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Case Document 1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 8 of 13 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS SUGARHOUSE AND RUSH STREET Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe, repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence, in operating table games at Sugarhouse for its customers/patrons and to make sure that its card decks were properly stocked, sorted and/or counted and that its card shuf?ers were properly functioning. On numerous occasions, Defendant breached this duty by supplying its table games with illegitimate decks, decks that had either too many cards, too few cards, or containing certain playing cards that did not belong with the decks in certain games, or tables with malfunctioning card sorters. Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe, were patrons of Sugarhouse from May 2017 to January 1, 2018, the period during which Sugarhouse admitted to various violations under a consent agreement with the Gaming Control Board, dated July 26, 2018. As a result of Defendant?s conduct, Plaintiffs Mattie and Vespe have been damaged and have sustained damages. the Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe are entitled to damages, both compensatory and punitive, costs of suit, and attorney?s fees. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Case Document 1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 9 of 13 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF BREACH OF CONTRACT DEFENDANTS SUGARHOUSE AND RUSH STREET Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe, repeat the allegations set f01th in Paragraphs 1 through 34 of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein. As paying patrons of Sugarhouse, there was an implied contract between Defendants and their customers of fair play, and for Defendants to provide an honest wagering environment to their customers at the casino. Nevertheless, among other actions, Defendants supplied the table games, including those participated in by Plaintiffs, Mattia and Vespe, with illegitimate decks, decks that had either too many cards, too few cards, or the improper denomination of cards included in the game, andfor malfunctioning card sorters. By providing illegitimate decks andfor malfunctioning card sorters, the Defendants breached their duty of providing Plaintiffs, Mattia and Vespe and other patrons of Sugarhouse with both a fair wagering environment and a level playing ?eld for wagering. As a result of Defendants failing to provide Plaintiffs, Mattia and Vespe and other patrons with a level/fair playing field, Plaintiffs, Mattia and Vespe were damaged and suffered signi?cant monetary losses. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe, are entitled to damages against Defendants, both punitive and compensatory, costs of suit, and attorney?s fees. Case Document 1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 10 of 13 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNJU ST ENRICHEMENT DEFENDANTS SUGARHOUSE AND RUSH STREET 41. Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe repeats the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 through 39 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 42. As a result of the conduct described above, Defendants Sugarhouse and Rush Street have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe. 43. Defendants Sugarhouse and Rush Street should be required to disgorge all monies and gains which they have obtained at the expense of Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe for the period from May 2017 through January 2018. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe are entitled to damages against Defendants, both punitive and compensatory, costs of suit, and attorney?s fees. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF BREACH OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING DEFENDANTS SUGARHOUSE AND RUSH STREET 44. Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe repeat the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 42 of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 45. Defendants in operating a casino had a duty to treat Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe and other patrons fairly and had a duty of good faith and fair dealing towards them. 46. Nevertheless, among other actions, Defendants supplied the table games, including those participated in by Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe, with illegitimate decks, decks that had 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. Case Document 1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 11 of 13 either too many cards, too few cards, 0.: the improper denomination of cards included in the game, and/ or malfunctioning card sorters. In providing illegitimate decks and/ or non-functioning sorters, Defendants failed to act in good faith and deal fairly with their customers. Plaintiffs Mattia and VeSpe have been damaged, speci?cally in the form of signi?cant monetary damages, when Defendants acting in bad faith and not dealing fairly with them. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe are entitled to damages against Defendants, both punitive and compensatory, costs of suit, and attorney?s fees. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FRAUD ALL DEFNDANTS Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe repeat the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 47 of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein. Defendants represented to the public that in operating the Sugarhouse casino under the Gaming Control Act, Defendants supplied Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe and other patrons with an honest and fair wagering environment. Defendants continued to take wages, despite knowledge of illegitimate decks and/or malfunctioning card sorters. In fact, Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe relied on Defendants? false representation when they placed wagering bets at Sugarhouse on numerous occasions between the period from May 2017 to January 1, 2018. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe with an honest and fair wagering environment at Sugarhouse when they supplied the table games, including those participated in by Plaintiffs, with illegitimate decks, decks that had either too many 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Case Document 1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 12 of 13 cards, too few cards, or the imprOper denomination of cards included in the game, and/or malfunctioning card sorters. As a result of the Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe has been damaged and have suffered signi?cant monetary losses. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe are entitled to damages against Defendants, both punitive and compensatory, costs of suit, and attorney?s fees. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF I CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD. ALL DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe repeat the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 53 of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein. Defendants Sugarhouse, Rush Street, John Doe Companies I-X, John Does I-X, and Jane Does LX, acted together and conspired to mislead the public that in operating the Sugarhouse casino under the Gaming Control Act, Defendants supplied Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe and other patrons with an honest and fair wagering environment. Defendants continued to take wagers, despite knowledge of illegitimate decks and/or malfunctioning card sorters. In fact, Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe relied on Defendants? false representation when they placed wagering bets at Sugarhouse on numerous occasions between the period from May 2017 to January 1, 2018. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe with an honest and fair wagering environment at Sugarhouse when they supplied the table games, including those participated. in by Plaintiffs, with illegitimate decks, decks that had either too many Case Document 1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 13 of 13 cards, too few cards, or the improper denomination of cards included in the game, and/or malfunctioning card sorters. 60. As a result of the Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe have been damaged and have suffered signi?cant monetary losses. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mattia and Vespe are entitled to damages against Defendants, both punitive and compensatmy, costs of suit, and attorney?s fees. JURY DEMAND The Plaintiff demands trial by jury. LAW OFFICES OF CONRAD J. BENED Xs/ Conrad J. Benedetto Conrad J. Benedetto, Esqgii?e Attorney for Defendant AN TH IN a sign?; and WILLIAM VESPE i OPTIMUM LAW GROUP Steven einstein, Esquire Steven Feinstein, Esquire Attorney for Defendants ANTHONY MATTIA and WILLIAM VESPE 10