Caesars Ent. Files to Dismiss Suit from Sports Better Denied $800 Thousand in Winnings for Breaking House Rules

• Caesars Entertainment filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit from a sports bettor who won $800K at two of its midwestern casinos last year
• Caesars refused to pay Thomas McPeek because he violated house rules
• Though gaming regulators in two states upheld Caesars’ decision, McPeek sued earlier this year in Nevada Federal Court
• Caesars’ motion argues that the lawsuit is invalid substantively and was filed in the wrong jurisdiction

On July 28, Caesars Entertainment filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought earlier this year by Thomas McPeek in US District Court, Nevada. McPeek is the young Chicagoan who was denied $800K in winnings from in-person sports bets last year because he broke the house rules of two midwestern Caesars properties.

McPeek studied up on parlays — bets where several events all need to happen at once to produce a win — to obtain a competitive advantage. He then placed hundreds of small bets, primarily via self-service kiosks, during multiple visits to the Isle Casino in Bettendorf, Iowa, where he won $450K, and the Horseshoe Casino in Hammond, Ind., where he won $350K in August and September 2024.

McPeek also won $127K at Boyd Gaming’s Blue Chip Casino in Michigan City, Ind., which paid him the winnings.

It was a calculated attack where I thought I had an edge,” McPeek told CBS News/Chicago earlier this year. “(But) it’s not like I can just snap my fingers and just make the bets win. They still have to win.”

The issue is that two of McPeek’s strategies, cross-state coordination and structuring, violate common casino policies.

Cross-state coordination refers to coordinated betting across state lines to exploit odds differences or limits, and structuring is any attempt to circumvent the federal casino requirement to report cash transactions over $10K, a safeguard against money laundering under the Bank Secrecy Act.

Bettor Watch Out

Following McPeek’s bets, Caesars reported the wagers to the Indiana Gaming Commission (IGC) and Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (IRGC), seeking to void them for violating house rules. Both commissions investigated and found no improper action by Caesars.

McPeek’s lawsuit contested those decisions, asserting 18 separate causes of action.

In a 15-page document prepared by the law firm McDonald Carano LLP, Caesars outlined its motion to dismiss based on substantive and jurisdictional legal grounds.

First and foremost, all contractual claims in McPeek’s lawsuit fail, the motion argues, due to unambiguous house rules allowing wager-voiding with regulatory approval.

The motion also seeks dismissal because Caesars Entertainment is merely a parent company without direct involvement in the wagering contracts or actions of its subsidiaries. (Parent-subsidiary distinction is a common defense in corporate litigation.)

Finally, Caesars argues that the Nevada Federal Court lacks jurisdiction, which under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) lies with the state gaming commissions and their respective state courts.

The IGC and IRGC’s approval of the wager-voiding leaves McPeek to pursue remedies through Indiana’s administrative and judicial review processes under Indiana Code § 4-21.5-5.

Additionally, Caesars’ motion argues, the terms of service for the gaming company’s kiosks mandate arbitration in Iowa for disputes not under state agency jurisdiction, aligning with the Federal Arbitration Act’s strong presumption favoring arbitration.

In essence, Nevada is the wrong court, Caesars argues, because no substantial events occurred in the Silver State.