Pennsylvania State Capitol. Photo: ShutterstockGaming Device Co. Sues Eckert Seamans Over Parx Casino Representation
Former client Pace-O-Matic said in a federal lawsuit that Eckert Seamans dropped the company like a "hot potato" when it brought up the alleged conflict.
February 19, 2020 at 02:19 PM
3 minute read
An ex-client of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, gaming company Pace-O-Matic, is suing the firm over an alleged conflict for representing a casino just outside Philadelphia in an ongoing fight over the legality of Pace-O-Matic games in Pennsylvania.
Pace-O-Matic alleged that even as its lawyers at Eckert Seamans defended the company's devices on the grounds that they are legal games of skill, the firm was simultaneously arguing on behalf of Parx Casino that the same games should be outlawed as illegal gambling devices.
When Pace-O-Matic confronted the law firm about that conflict, the complaint said, "Eckert further breached the duty of undivided loyalty owed to POM by dropping POM like the proverbial 'hot potato' in favor of its more lucrative client relationship with Parx Casino."
In a complaint filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the gaming company argued that Eckert Seamans should be enjoined from representing Parx in any matters adverse to Pace-O-Matic.
According to the complaint, Eckert Seamans represented Pace-O-Matic in various matters related to its games, including litigation and government relations strategies. Their relationship dates back to 2011, the complaint said, and included matters in Pennsylvania and Virginia.
"As counsel for POM and its affiliates, Eckert secured legal and governmental opinions attesting that POM's products are games of skill and not gambling devices," the complaint said, noting that the firm used those arguments in June 2019 in Virginia state court.
But in a Bucks County, Pennsylvania, court action in December 2019, the complaint said, Eckert Seamans argued on behalf of Parx "that POM manufactures 'illegal slot machines' and 'deceptively markets these games as "legal" when, in fact, they are not.'"
Pace-O-Matic alleged that just a few days before that argument, the company had a conference call with Eckert Seamans about Pennsylvania legal matters affecting it.
And in January of this year, the complaint alleged, Eckert Seamans' gaming practice co-chair sent letters on behalf of Parx to various municipalities in Pennsylvania which referred to Pace-O-Matic devices as "'illegal slot machines.'" Several casinos with Pennsylvania operations are arguing that under a November 2019 Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court opinion, "skill games" like the ones Pace-O-Matic makes should not be considered legal in the state.
Pace-O-Matic alleged that its existence is threatened by Eckert Seamans' efforts on behalf of Parx to have its machines and others like it designated as illegal gambling.
When the company requested that Eckert Seamans withdraw from representing Parx, the law firm refused, according to the complaint.
Pace-O-Matic is seeking a declaration that Eckert Seamans breached its duty, and wants the firm to disgorge all legal fees it paid. It is also seeking punitive damages.
Erik Anderson, Daniel Brier and Donna Walsh of Myers Brier & Kelly are representing Pace-O-Matic. Eckert Seamans does not yet have an attorney listed for the case.
Spokespeople for Eckert Seamans did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Ex-DLA Piper, Ballard Spahr Atty Accused of Aiding Video Game Company Founder's Misappropriation Scheme
5 minute read
From M&A to Music Fest, Ballard Spahr Attorney Hosts Week-Long Jam Session With Help of Clients
5 minute read
$43.5M Med Mal Verdict for Ex-Eagles Team Captain Withstands Appellate Challenge
Pa. Casinos Ask Court to Force State to Tax Skill Games Found in Stores Equally to Slots
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
