One lawsuit against Michael Postle was recently dismissed in California, but the one in Nevada is just moving along.
Numerous poker players – approximately 90 plaintiffs plus many others in the poker community – accused Postle of cheating in poker games that were livestreamed on the internet from Stones Gambling Hall in Northern California. According to the lawsuits, Postle and an unnamed cohort at Stones worked together to allow Postle to see the hole cards of his opponents, thus winning hands at a nearly-impossible rate.
The majority of those plaintiffs were involved in the case against Postle, Stones, and Stones’ tournament director Justin Kuraitis. The judge in that case ultimately dismissed all charges against the defendants earlier this month.
Meanwhile, however, as the plaintiffs likely prepare an amended complaint in the California case, Postle faces the one plaintiff – Marle Cordeiro – in Nevada.
Same Story, Different Lawsuit
The basics of the formal allegations against Postle are the same in both cases. Hours and hours of footage show proof – at least to most educated poker players – that Postle used some type of inappropriate method by which to make decisions in poker hands.
Other aspects of the California and Nevada lawsuits also lined up. In both cases, Postle tried to evade being served with the official civil complaints. In both cases, the judges had to authorize an alternative method of notification because Postle would not accept documents. Both times, Postle was forced to accept that he was being sued.
Now, in the Nevada case, Postle filed a motion to dismiss, just as he did in the previous case. This time, however, he actually hired an attorney instead of asking one to ghostwrite his motions.
Recalling Actions by Postle
Marle Cordeiro filed her lawsuit against Postle three months into 2020, approximately six months after the California suit. She filed her case in Nevada because of her residency there.
Cordeiro’s case alleged that Postle lured her to play in the Stones Live cash games in September 2019, and she did travel to Northern California to play. It was during those games that she claims he cheated. She detailed five causes of action in her court filing:
--1. Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by using wire transmissions to cheat--2. Fraud for falsely claiming to be an honest player--3. Negligent misrepresentation by claiming Stones games were honest--4. Negligence per se by devising a scheme by which defraud by means of false pretenses--5. Negligence per se for violating the California Penal Code regarding cheating in a gambling game
https://twitter.com/TMZ/status/1247168063067152386?s=20
As mentioned, Postle tried to avoid accepting the paperwork regarding the case, but the judge authorized alternative methods of notification. Cordeiro’s attorney, Mac VerStandig, served Postle via those methods on May 19.
Postle Files Motion to Dismiss
Last week, Postle and his Nevada attorneys at Maier Gutierrez & Associates filed a motion to dismiss for “lack of personal jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, based on forum non conveniens.” Essentially, this is a way of saying that another court – one in California – would be better suited to hear the case.
The motion claims that the Nevada court has no personal jurisdiction over Postle because he is a resident of California, does not have “continuous and systematic contacts with Nevada,” and did not direct any activities toward Nevada related to Cordeiro’s allegations.
Postle also claims that the Nevada lawsuit, which he says is nearly identical and was filed by the same attorney as represented plaintiffs in the California case, is an attempt to “forum shop.” This is a legal term meaning that the plaintiff chose the court that would most likely rule in her favor or has favorable laws for her case.
The defendant claimed that the Nevada case would be “burdensome” for Postle.
With that, Postle filed for the dismissal due to Nevada not having a lawful personal jurisdiction over him. And if that isn’t good enough for the judge, he filed the “alternative” claim of forum non conveniens.
And just for kicks, Postle attached a copy of the California case dismissal as a “supplemental notice of related case.”
Next Steps?
VerStandig will likely file a response to the motion to dismiss, arguing for Cordeiro against the points in Postle’s motion. The court will likely receive this response next week or in the first days of July.
After that, Postle and his attorneys may submit a response to that response. After that, the judge may hear oral arguments on the motion to dismiss and then issue a ruling.
Disclaimer: This author is not a lawyer and has virtually zero qualifications to analyze legal documents or arguments. Nevertheless, she persists.
Comments