Las Vegas Injury Lawyers Blog

The Supreme Court has granted review to an FLSA case that raises several critical arbitration questions such as whether a court will enforce an employee's express agreement that 1) prohibits class action employment claims and 2) waives class action arbitrations. American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant.

American Express provides card services to retail merchants, including supermarkets. To be an American Express merchant, retailers sign a Card Acceptance Agreement, which contains a clause requiring all claims to be submitted to arbitration and another clause which prohibits merchants from bringing class action claims. While both parties to the Agreement can terminate the contract at any time, American Express reserved the right to change the Agreement at any time.

While American Express initially only provided charge cards to holders, in recent years the company has also offered credit cards. Charge cards require a holder to pay off the balance each month, while credit cards allow the holder to maintain a revolving balance.

In 2009, several retail merchants, including Italian Colors Restaurant, brought individual lawsuits against American Express, claiming that the Card Acceptance Agreement violates U.S. antitrust laws. Specifically the merchants were upset that though the American Express card was becoming more akin to other credit cards, such as Visa and Mastercharge, American Express was still charging the merchants a merchant discount fee 35% higher than the competitive rates for Visa and Mastercharge.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated the cases. American Express moved to dismiss citing the arbitration clause, and the district court granted the dismissal. On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of appeals held the arbitration clause; in particular the class action waiver was unenforceable because it essentially protected American Express from antitrust suits. American Express appealed and the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the ruling and remanded for further proceedings. The appellate court still found the class action waiver to be unenforceable, so the high court again granted certiorari to determine if the appellate court's decision was consistent with the high court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, where the Supreme Court held that California's refusal to enforce arbitration agreements on similar grounds was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Grants Review to FLSA Case Testing Whether an Employee can Waive Arbitration - Las Vegas Employment Law Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Genesis Healthcare v. Symczyk to decide whether a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action should have been dismissed because the named plaintiff's claim became moot.

Laura Symczyk was a registered nurse for Genesis. Two years after she began her job, Symczyk initiated a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals. The collective action alleged that Genesis violated the FLSA when they implemented a policy that subjected the pay of certain employees to an automatic meal break deduction whether or not the employee performed compensable work during his or her break.

While the case was pending in district court, Genesis served Symczyk with a Rule 68 offer of judgment. She did not respond. Thereafter the district court concluded that Genesis' offer of judgment mooted the collective action and dismissed the case. The 3rd Circuit reversed ruling that the potential for putative members of the as yet uncertified FLSA collective to join the case allowed it to stay alive, even though no other individual had actually opted in.

During oral argument, the high court's Justices initially seemed to focus on whether the named plaintiff's failure to accept the offer of judgment actually mooted her claims. This issue was not decided by the 3rd Circuit. The consensus seemed to be that the plaintiff's claims were not fully satisfied, and the fact that she walked away with nothing was not just a "housekeeping issue" as claimed by the defense.

Regarding the Rule 68 issue, the Justices noted:
1. Concern that "Rule 68 doesn't say anything about dismissing [the] suit" if a plaintiff rejects an offer for complete relief. Rather, by its plain language the rule merely allows for cost-shifting in the event that a plaintiff ultimately recovers less than the amount of the unaccepted offer.
2. The ramifications if a Rule 68 offer could be used to shortcut "the normal process of inviting opt-ins to occur" in FLSA cases.

While many hope that the high court will use this case to clarify the relationship between Rule 23 and § 216(b) and determine whether a putative collective action survives the mooting of the named plaintiff's claim, the Court may limit its ruling to a narrower issue of whether the district court properly found the named plaintiff's claim to be moot.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Hears Argument Regarding Whether a FLSA Collective Action Should be Dismissed when Named Plaintiff's Claim Becomes Moot - Las Vegas Employment Law Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

The death of a Las Vegas 7-year old boy has resulted in criminal charges against his mother and stepfather. Almost three months ago, Roderick "RJ" Arrington, left his maternal grandmother and natural father, and moved from Bloomington, IL to Las Vegas to again live with his natural mother, Dina Palmer, and her husband, Markiece Palmer. A week after the Thanksgiving holiday, RJ was dead.

According to statements by the Palmers in the police report, when RJ refused to obey the house rules to do his homework or read the Bible, Markiece beat and shook RJ while Dina watched. When RJ became unresponsive the couple called their church pastor, and then contacted emergency services. When RJ arrived at the hospital, a doctor noted he was suffering from brain swelling and his pupils were fixed. Open abrasions on RJ's buttocks, and bruises on his arms, abdomen, back, legs, thighs, and buttocks, were evidence that RJ had been beating prior several times prior to this incident. RJ died a day later. The hospital immediately called the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

Though Dina said she only watched Markiece beat and shake RJ and did not participate, both Dina and Markiece have been charged. Dina was charged with single counts of murder; child abuse, neglect or endangerment with substantial bodily harm; and child neglect or endangerment with substantial bodily harm. Markiece was charged with one count of murder and two counts of child abuse, neglect or endangerment with substantial bodily harm.

Markiece told the Las Vegas police that on several occasions he used his hands, a spatula, belt, and wooden paddle to beat RJ. Dina struck RJ on his buttocks with her hand and a belt.

RJ was a second grade student at Roundy Elementary School. When a Roundy teacher had concerns that RJ was being abused, she called the Clark County Department of Family Services. CCDFS was "in the process of investigation when additional information was reported to the agency indicating the child had been transported to a local hospital and was listed as being in critical condition."

Dina and Markiece are being held without bail. A preliminary hearing has been set for January 18, 2013.

Continue reading "Death of Las Vegas 7-Year Old Results in Criminal Charges Against his Mother and Step Father - Las Vegas Criminal Defense Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

A second trial has begun for a former Las Vegas policeman, Maurice Carroll in one of Las Vegas' courthouse's biggest scandals. Carroll, who served on the Las Vegas Police Department from 1990 to 2000, is being retried on 17 perjury counts. He is also being tried for the first time on 17 forgery counts. A jury previously found Carroll guilty of the 17 perjury courts. However, when District Judge Elissa Cadish ordered Carroll retried on the perjury charges, prosecutors added the 17 forgery counts.

In 2010, Carroll, the owner and process server for On Scene Mediations, was charged with, and admitted to, submitting false affidavits in Las Vegas Justice Court. According to police, Carroll, who served court papers for payday loan companies Rapid Cash and Budget Loans, as well as debt collector Richland Holdings, never served defendants in many civil actions, though he filed court affidavits saying he had. Defendants named in the court affidavits were then hit with default judgments after they failed to show up for cases they knew nothing about.

Police became aware of Carroll's improprieties when Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Melissa Saragosa brought the allegations against Carroll to the police. The 17 felony charges are based on 17 civil cases brought by Richland Holdings against defendants who have sworn they were never served by Carroll. Several defendants have proven that at the time they were allegedly served at home, they were at work. Others claim the addresses of service were to residences where they did not live. Still others claim they were out of town when Carroll allegedly served them in Las Vegas.

Paul Liggio, owner of Richland Holdings, testified against Carroll during the first trial. Vilisia Coleman, Carroll's former office manager who was determined to be complicit with Carroll, was also charged. Coleman pleaded guilty and will now testify for the prosecution.

Carroll has steadfastly claimed that the filed court affidavits came from dead files used to train new employees. They were never to be filed and the fact that they were filed was Coleman's fault.

Las Vegas Justice Court officials believe up to 25 thousand civil cases could be ultimately tied to false court affidavits filed by Carroll's company. Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada has filed a class action lawsuit against Carroll and Rapid Cash on behalf of defendants who were never served court papers.

In 2011, Carroll was convicted of choking his pregnant girlfriend during an argument.

Continue reading "iminal Defense Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

Tis the season to be jolly brings an increase in drivers driving under the influence. Though Las Vegas isn't one of the top ten "drunkest" cities in the U.S., according to Men's Health magazine's 2010 list of America's "drunkest" cities, the "city that never sleeps" ranks 11. It also, under Nevada law, ranks as one of the toughest states on drivers caught driving under the influence of alcohol. However, punishment for a DUI in the state of Nevada depends on where the DUI occurs.

In Nevada, DUI laws on federal National Park Service land, such as Lake Mead National Recreation Area, and DUI laws on state land, such as the Las Vegas Strip, are different. The former is controlled by federal law, the Code of Federal Regulation, while the latter is controlled by Nevada state law.

If arrested for a DUI on federal park land, the first time offender is charged with a Class B misdemeanor. Punishment includes:

1. Up to $5,000 in fines,
2. Suspension of the driver's drivers license, and
3. A prison term up to six months.

Under Nevada state law, a first time DUI offender can receive:

1. From 2 days to 6 months in jail OR 24 to 96 hours of community service with a suspended jail sentence of up to 6 months,
2. A fine of $400 to $1000, plus court costs,
3. 8 hours of DUI school at the driver's own expense,
4. Mandatory attendance at a Nevada Victim Impact Panel,
5. A suspension of your driver's license for 90 days, though a restricted driver's license allowing driving to and from work or in the course of employment can be applied for after 45 days of the suspension has passed, and
6. Installation of an "ignition interlock device" for 3 to 6 months and/or submission to alcohol abuse assessment, if the BAC is .18% or higher.

Under both federal and Nevada state law, a person is generally guilty of a DUI if his or her blood alcohol concentration is at or above .08%. Most important, under Nevada's Implied Consent Law, and federal law, Nevada driver "implies" consent to have their BAC tested (blood, breath, or urine) by a police officer the moment they get into a car and drive. Refusal to cooperate is implied as a resist and gives the police the right to make an immediate arrest or even, though less likely, use reasonable force to carry out the test. Proof of refusal can also be admitted into any subsequent court proceeding.

Continue reading "Punishment for Nevada DUI's Depends on Where the DUI Occurs - Las Vegas Criminal Defense Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

In 2010, the Clark County Commission approved new inquest procedures which appointed an ombudsman to represent the family of any person killed by officers, and release key evidence and investigative files. This past October, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in Hernandez that the use of an ombudsman in the coroner's inquest process did not violate the due process of law enforcement officers. However, because the process required only a justice of the peace to serve as a presiding officer in the coroner's inquest proceedings regarding officer-involved deaths the coroner's inquest process intruded on the Legislature's exclusive authority over the jurisdiction of justices of the peace and therefore was unconstitutional.

Reacting to a recent decision by the Nevada Supreme Court, Clark County Commissioners have now agreed to consider two proposals to bring the coroner's inquest process into line with the high court's decision. Under the first proposal the only change to the current process would be to replace the justice of the peace with a hearing officer. The second proposal goes further. The justice of the peace would be replaced with a hearing officer; the police officers and anyone who could be a witness to the police involved shooting would be eliminated from the coroner's inquest process; and the facts of the case would be presented by the lead homicide investigator who would be questioned by the hearing master and an attorney. While the second proposal is strongly supported by the police union, the first proposal is supported by several commissioners as well as many in the community.

According to Clark County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, the second proposal tweaks the coroner's inquest process so much it essentially has nothing of substance. She favors the first proposal which eliminates the technicality ruled unconstitutional by the Nevada Supreme Court. Further, if it doesn't work, would allow the commission to make changes in the future.

The commissioners will debate both proposals after the new year. No coroner inquests have been held since 2010.

Continue reading "After Nevada Supreme Court Decision, County Commissioners Now Agree on Two Proposals to Change Coroner's Inquest Process - Las Vegas Criminal Defense Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

A Clark County jury has found Las Vegas tourist, Benjamin Hawkins, guilty of involuntary manslaughter after he punched a man to death in a Strip casino.

Hawkins, a Florida resident, was vacationing with his family in Las Vegas when he encountered John Massie, a Las Vegas tourist from Utah, at the O'Sheas casino. According to the casino's inaudible video, after Massie left a casino restroom he went to one of the casino's food court. A few minutes later Hawkins left the same restroom. As Hawkins passed Massie, the two men exchanged words. When Hawkins began to walk away, Massie, whose hands were in his pocket, took three steps behind Hawkins. Hawkins then spun around and punched Massie. According to the medical report, Massie died as a result of the head trauma caused when his head then slammed into the floor.

Hawkins claimed Massie was intoxicated and bumped into him in the restroom. When he left the restroom and was looking for his family he passed Massie who spoke to him. He thought Massie was going to apologize, however, instead Massie called him a racial slur and then aggressively approached him. Scared for himself, his wife, family, and friends, that is when and why Hawkins punched Massie.

After closing arguments by the lawyers, the jury deliberated for about 90 minutes before returning the guilty verdict. According to the jury, the video did not support Hawkins' version of the events. Because he was focused on the victim and not looking for his family when he exited the restroom, Hawkins wanted to continue the confrontation that began in the bathroom. That negated the idea that Hawkins acted in self defense.

Hawkins, who is free pending sentencing, faces a prison term of up to four years. His attorney has indicated he will ask the judge to sentence Hawkins to probation.

Under the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), involuntary manslaughter is "the killing of a human being, without any intent to do so, in the commission of an unlawful act, or a lawful act which probably might produce such a consequence in an unlawful manner." NRS 200.070

Continue reading "Clark County Jury Finds Las Vegas Tourist Did Not Act in Self-Defense - Las Vegas Criminal Defense Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

The Clark County School District Police recently arrested two siblings suspected of physically bullying another student, then uploading the video to YouTube. In the video, the two brothers, ages 15 and 13, were seen slapping the other student in the face several times. The older sibling was also seen flashing gang signs in the video. Police booked both boys into juvenile detention after charging them each with battery. The older sibling also faces a possible gang enhancement charge. The younger sibling attends school at Roy Martin Middle School.

In Nevada, juveniles found guilty of battery can face fines, house arrest, probation, and/or community service. If the battery is deemed a misdemeanor, they can also face up to a year in a juvenile detention facility. For batteries deemed a felony, juveniles can face a minimum of one year imprisonment in a state institution.

Two local 11-year old boys recently pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit animal cruelty. In October, witnesses discovered the two boys throwing rocks at a mother cat giving birth. The mother cat's six kittens later died. However, since it could not be proven that the kittens died from the attack on the mother, the boys could not be charged with animal cruelty.

After the boys' psychological evaluations did not show any underlying psychological issues, the boys were each sentenced to 12 months of probation and a 30-day suspended sentence in the Clark County Juvenile Detention Center. The boys also must perform 80 hours of community service, attend school, and have no further association with each other.

In 2011, the Nevada Legislature passed Senate Bill 223 which treats animal cruelty in the state as a criminal felony. Senate Bill 223 is popularly known as Cooney's Law.

Continue reading "Spate of Criminal Activity Has Local Boys in Courts - Las Vegas Criminal Defense Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

Jacktrade LLC, now a defunct Las Vegas company, has pleaded guilty to the interstate transmission of wagering information. This illegal gambling charge, which was related to offshore sports wagering, is a violation of the federal Wire Act which bans the transmission of illegal gambling information. It is commonly used against unlicensed sports-betting operations and bookies.

In 2005, International Racing Group (IRG) was purchased by Youbet.com. In 2006, federal agencies began an investigation of IRG and its sister company, Jacktrade. Federal investigators became aware of IRG while investigating the Jelinsky brothers, who operated a bookmaking business in Las Vegas and other locations. Federal investigators were tipped off to the Jelinsky brothers by an anonymous letter to the Nevada Gaming Control Board. The Nevada Gaming Commission and the State Gaming Control Board govern Nevada's gaming industry.

According to court records, one of the Jelinsky brothers, Michael, recruited gamblers for IRG and IRG then paid him a commission. Jacktrade then routed sports bets illegally through offshore sites in the Caribbean. Specifically, gamblers placed horse and dog racing bets by calling the companies' office in Curacao.

The secret investigation became public when Youbet.com revealed federal agents under the jurisdiction of the Las Vegas U.S. Attorney's Office had searched Youbet.com's office. Though Youbet.com shut down IRG after the raid, the investigation continued. A government asset forfeiture suit locked down under "super seal" protected grand jury information, wiretap information, and cooperating witnesses.

Under Jacktrade's plea bargain, the company will forfeit more than $2 million in cash and other assets which were seized by federal agents more than five years ago.

Jacktrade's president, Louis Tavano, owned IRG along with Richard Tavano and James Scott. Under the plea deal, none of these men will face prosecution.

Continue reading "Las Vegas Company Pleads Guilty to Illegal Gambling Charge in District Court - Las Vegas Criminal Defense and Business Law Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an undercover agent can record an illegal transaction if invited onto the premises. Not having a warrant or requesting permission to record does not negate the legality of the recording. US v. Wahchumwah.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Agency began investigating Ricky Wahchumwah, after receiving several anonymous complaints that he was selling eagle parts. During the investigation, Special Agent Robert Romero cultivated a relationship with Wahchumwah, such that Wahchumwah sold Romero a set of eagle wings. When Romero later visited Wahchumwah in the latter's home, Romero decided to wear a concealed audio video recording device. During Romero's visit, Wahchumwah showed the undercover federal agent a blue spiral notebook which contained several eagle plumes. Wahchumwah also told Romero that he had recently purchased an eagle tail.

Based on the information seen and heard in the concealed audio video recorder, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Agency executed a search warrant on Wahchumwah's home and the property's outbuildings. After his arrest, Wahchumwah was convicted of conspiracy, Lacey Act violations, and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act violations. (The Lacey Act creates civil and criminal penalties for persons who illegally take, transport, or sell wildlife, fish, and plants. Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, a person who takes any part of a bald eagle without a permit will receive a criminal penalty.)

Wahchumwah appealed arguing a violation of his 4th Amendment rights.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hoffa v. U.S., upheld the district court's decision stating that "4th Amendment protection does not extend to information that a person voluntarily exposes to a government agent, including an undercover agent."

Continue reading "Ninth Circuit Holds Undercover Agent Can Record Illegal Transaction Without Warrant or Permission if Invited onto Premises - Las Vegas Criminal Defense and Business Law Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

The good news: Starbucks is not the only coffee shop caught with their hand in their employee's pockets.

The bad news: Their judgment 100% more than the settlement their competitor agreed to.

Earlier this year, Seattle-based Baristas Coffee Co. settled an employment lawsuit brought against them by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Under the terms of the settlement, two Baristas' company officers, Barry Henthron and T. Scott Steciw, had to pay $75 thousand in back wages and damages to current and former employees.

Now, the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has hit Seattle-based Starbucks with a $7.5 million judgment for violating the state's Tips Act.

Under Starbucks' policy, tips are divided among the baristas and shift supervisors in proportion to the number of hours they work. However, under federal law, employers, which include supervisors and managers, are not allowed to be part of the pool.

Starbucks argued that since shift supervisors served customers alongside the baristas they deserved to be tipped. The 1st Circuit vehemently disagreed saying "since "Starbucks is the architect of these tips pools, which flout the law and lump together eligible and ineligible employees. If there is an inequity, the fault lies with Starbucks - not with the Tips Act."

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that Starbucks shift supervisors had improperly taken $7.5 million in tips over a six year period. Starbucks has over 17 thousand locations throughout the United States. A similar lawsuit is pending in New York. It is expected that other similar lawsuits against Starbucks could arise in other states with the potential for a class action suit.

Continue reading "Starbuck Supervisors Found Guilty of Stealing Tips - Las Vegas Employment Law Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

The Interstate Distributor Company has settled a discrimination lawsuit brought against them by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for $4.85 million. According to the EEOC, the Tacoma, WA trucking company discriminated against their employees by instituting a "maximum leave" and "no restrictions" policies. Specifically, Interstate Distributor automatically terminated any employee who did not return to work after taking their 12 weeks of leave allowed under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Further, any employee who wanted to return to work but required some accommodation for his or her disability was also automatically terminated. These policies were enforced without leeway or to determine if any accommodation could be made for an employee.

The American Disability Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination based on disability. Employers are required to provide a reasonable accommodation, such as paid or unpaid leave, some modifications to the employee's job functions, or reassignment, to an employee with a disability, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer. Interstate Distributor provided no evidence that accommodating employees with disabilities was significantly difficult or an onerous expense for them.

The EEOC has long held the position that employers must make an individualized determination, for each employee that has exhausted a leave of absence, as to whether that employee can return to work with or without reasonable accommodation for a disability. The agency has made aggressive pursuit of companies who violate the ADA or FMLA, such as Interstate Distributor, a high priority.

In addition to the high monetary award, Interstate Distributor was hit with a three year injunction which prohibits the company from engaging in any further discrimination or retaliation based on disability. Interstate Distributor was also ordered to revise its leave policies to include reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities and provide mandatory periodic ADA training to all employees. The company must also inform the EEOC of any complaints by employees related to disability discrimination, and appoint an internal consent decree monitor to ensure its compliance with the decree.

The lawsuit was filed by the EEOC in Colorado and applies to all of the company's facilities and employees throughout the country.

Continue reading "Interstate Trucking Company Agrees to $5 million Award for Violating ADA - Las Vegas Employment Law Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

Employees of the California clothing retailer, The West Seal, were dealt a major setback when a California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision to not certify their class of retail employees. The plaintiffs had sought certification to represent approximately 12 thousand The Wet Seal employees in California. Morgan v. Wet Seal, Inc.

Several The Wet Seal employees sued their employer claiming the retailer forced them to purchase its clothing without any reimbursement. Under California Labor Law Code Section 450 no employer may compel or coerce any employee to patronize his or her employer in the purchase of anything of value.

In reviewing the evidence the appellate court focused in on the fact that The Wet Seal had no written, state-wide policy that required employees to make purchases from its stores. Additionally, though the plaintiffs had declarations from over 50 former employees, only some of them corroborated the plaintiffs' claims. Other declarations were ambiguous. Furthermore, an email from a district director that supported the plaintiffs' motion for class certification held no weight with the appellate court since it was ambiguous, there was no evidence that the district director was empowered to establish companywide policy, and the email was never distributed companywide.

Finally the appellate court noted that The Wet Seal submitted its own declarations from over 100 potential class members, The Wet Seal employees, who stated that they were never told to buy and wear West Seal clothing.

Because of the disparity among the plaintiffs' and the defendant's declarations, and the ambiguous email, the appellate court held that to determine any state-wide liability on the part of The Wet Sale would require individual inquiries of store managers and store employees. Specifically, it would have to be determined 1) what each store manager told each store's employee about any such purchases, and 2) whether the employee purchased any Wet Seal clothing in reliance on any instruction. As such the individual questions needed predominated any common issue among a potential class.

Continue reading "Liberal California Refuses to Certify Class of Retail Employees - Las Vegas Employment Law Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

A federal jury has convicted a Las Vegas man, Ryan Masters, 28, of feloniously obtaining thousands of credit, debit and gift card numbers, and then using them to purchase electronics and obtain cash.

Masters was convicted of one count of conspiracy, four counts of possession of 15 or more counterfeit or unauthorized access devices, one count of aggravated identity theft, and criminal forfeiture in violation of 18 USC Chapter 47 Sections 1028 (Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information), 1028A (Aggravated identity theft), 1029 (Fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), and 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers). Masters was originally charged with 26 counts of forgery, 1 count of burglary, 3 counts of obtaining money under false pretenses, and 9 counts of uttering forged instruments, and held on a $119 thousand bond.

According to the evidence presented at trial, during a two year period Masters:

1. purchased stolen credit, debit or gift card account numbers from an individual n Pakistan;
2. came to possess thousands of pages of customer records, which included the customers' credit card numbers, that had been stolen from a Las Vegas hotel; and
3. used computer software to predict gift card numbers issued by card companies.

All of the money generated from his illegal activities was spent on electronics and other personal items, as well as to buy gift cards, which he then sold to unsuspecting customers.

The Masters' case was investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Chu. Masters is scheduled to be sentenced in February 2013. He faces up to 10 years in prison on the conspiracy and access device counts and two years for the aggravated identity theft count. Masters also faces fines of up to $250 thousand.

Continue reading "Las Vegas Man Convicted of Aggravated Identity Theft and Criminal Forfeiture - Las Vegas Criminal Defense Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has told Wynn Resorts Ltd. that they have to arbitrate a disputed fee an investment capital firm says it is owed.

In March 2009, Atlantic-Pacific Capital Inc., a Greenwich, Connecticut investment capital firm and Wynn Resorts entered into a written agreement making Atlantic-Pacific Wynn Resorts' exclusive global agent to raise $1.5 billion in equity capital. Wynn Resorts was being hit hard by the recession, and according to Michael Maddox, Wynn Resorts chief financial officer, the company faced "particular distress as they had capital demands, debt maturities and an ongoing business dispute." The agreement included a clause that "any dispute, controversy or claim arising from or relating to th[e] Agreement should be submitted to and determined by binding arbitration in Las Vegas, Nevada, conducted by" JAMS. The agreement further provided that it should "be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York."

By the end of 2009 the economy improved so Wynn Resorts took its properties off the market. Since it no longer needed the services of Atlantic-Pacific, Wynn Resorts terminated its agreement with the investment capital firm. Thereafter, Atlantic-Pacific filed an arbitration claim for $32 million in fees. Atlantic-Pacific argued it was owed the fees because, though Wynn Resorts decided against selling the resorts, Atlantic-Pacific had fulfilled its part of the agreement by lining up to $1.5 billion in investment commitments.

Wynn Resorts responded by filing a complaint in a Nevada state court and requesting a stay of the arbitration proceedings. Atlantic-Pacific then removed Wynn Resort's action to federal court. The district court stayed the arbitration proceedings and denied Atlantic-Pacific's motion to compel arbitration. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's holding, remanding the matter back to arbitration. The court held that the fact Wynn Resorts and Atlantic-Pacific incorporated JAMS rules and a broad arbitration clause in their agreement established their "clear and unmistakable intent to submit the issue of arbitrability to arbitration." Furthermore, a dispute over whether a fee was owed fell within the terms of the arbitration provision.

Wynn Resorts has been involved in a well-publicized shareholder/director dispute with Kazuo Okada, Japanese billionaire and formerly the largest shareholder in Las Vegas' Wynn Resorts, since January.

Continue reading "Las Vegas' Wynn Resorts Forced Back into Arbitration Over Retainer Dispute - Las Vegas Criminal Defense and Business Litigation Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »