Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV00379, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00379, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling

On February 22, 2023, plaintiff Jose Rivera (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants California State Lottery Commission (“Defendant”), the State of California (“State”), an individual named as “Reggie” (subsequently named as “Urachi F. Romero”) (“Romero”), and Edwin G. Castro (sued as “Edwin Castro”).

On September 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting claims for declaratory relief, conversion, trespass to chattel, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and negligent interference with prospective economic relations.

On November 17, 2023, Defendant filed this demurrer to the sole cause of action asserted by Plaintiff for declaratory relief. The demurrer is unopposed.

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.) “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. [Citation.]” (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].) Allegations are to be liberally construed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.)

Defendant requests the Court judicially notice a copy of a summary of lottery payments made to Edwin Castro from the California State Controller’s Office. The summary is unauthenticated by any declaration; therefore, the request for judicial notice is denied. Nevertheless, the Court sustains Defendant’s demurrers as discussed further below.

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s first cause of action for declaratory relief on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because: (1) California lottery regulations and the Powerball Group Rules from the Multi-State Lottery Association prevent Defendant from paying Plaintiff lottery winnings under the facts alleged in the FAC, (2) Defendant is only permitted to pay a prize once, and (3) Defendant owes no duty to Plaintiff.

“A complaint for declaratory relief must demonstrate: (1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party.” (Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 405, 410.) The purpose of a declaratory relief action is “to set controversies at rest before they lead to repudiation of obligations, invasions of rights, or commissions of wrongs . . . [Citations.]” (Travers v. Louden (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 926, 931.) “Another purpose is to liquidate doubts with respect to uncertainties or controversies which might otherwise result in subsequent litigation. [Citations.]” (Id.)

Here, Defendant persuasively argues in its unopposed demurrer that no controversy exists here because it owes Plaintiff no duty or obligation. As an initial matter, the Government Code clearly states: “No prize may be paid arising from tickets . . . not received . . . by the lottery . . . .” (Gov. Code, § 8880.321, subd. (b).) Defendant argues that Plaintiff, as an alleged ticket purchaser, “possesses no enforceable right as to the other participants, absent a winning ticket. The right to a winning share accrues solely from possession of a winning ticket, not from the mere purchase of a ticket.” (Brown v. Cal. State Lottery Com. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1340, citing Hochberg v. New York City Off–Track Betting Corp. (1973) 343 N.Y.S.2d 651, 655 [The right of a player to a share of a prize results not from buying a ticket but from having a ticket which evidences the winning bet.].)

Further, as Defendant explains in its brief, there are extensive regulations which bar Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief against Defendant. California Lottery Regulation 3.7.3.C(2)(b) confirms that only a “holder” of a valid ticket may be entitled to a prize. The California Lottery Regulations further provide that a valid, original Powerball ticket “is the only proof” of a player’s ticket numbers and “is the only acceptable instrument” for claiming a prize. (Cal. Lottery Reg. 3.7.4.A.) According to California Lottery Regulation 5.1.3.C, to claim a prize, a winner must submit a Claim Form, along with “the original winning” ticket with the information requested on the back of the ticket completed. According to California Lottery Regulation 5.3.1.C, “the original winning Ticket must be submitted to the Lottery” to validate the ticket as a winner. Moreover, the State Lottery “will not process a Claim or authorize payment for any . . . Powerball Prize without submission of the original Ticket.” (Id. at 5.3.3.D.) The regulations also state that the Lottery is “not responsible for Claims until they are successfully delivered to the Lottery. The Lottery is not responsible for . . . stolen, or lost Tickets or Claims.” (Cal. Lottery Reg. 5.5.3.) “Players are solely responsible for securing their Tickets against theft, loss, damage, or destruction. General criminal activity involving theft of Lottery Tickets from members of the public will not be investigated by the Lottery. Such crimes should be reported to appropriate law enforcement authorities.” (Id. at 5.5.4.) “The person in possession of an unsigned winning Lottery Ticket or a Ticket bearing his or her signature is the presumptive owner/Winner.” (Id. at 5.5.5.)

The premise of Plaintiff’s case relies on the allegation that his lottery ticket was allegedly stolen, so he had no winning ticket to present to the State Lottery to claim the prize and did not present a winning ticket to the State Lottery. Therefore, the Court is compelled to conclude that Plaintiff necessarily cannot state a claim against Defendant and sustains the demurrer. The Court further notes that Plaintiff failed to oppose this demurrer or show how amendment would be possible. Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

Defendant California State Lottery Commission’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.