Wright v Casino King: FIRAC Scenario #1
Casino King operates a hotel and gambling facility in East St. Louis, Illinois. Because East St.
Louis is directly across the Mississippi River from downtown St. Louis, Missouri, Casino King’s
location places it within a larger St. Louis metropolitan area. As such, Casino King actively
directs its marketing campaigns at Missouri residents to attract customers to patronize its hotel
and riverboat casino.
Casino King advertises through print, radio, and television media in Missouri; it also engages in
direct mailing campaigns targeted at Missouri addresses. Casino King also maintains business
relationships with professional sports teams in Missouri and pays for a special area inside Busch
Stadium (home of the St. Louis Cardinals) located inside known as the “Casino King Party
Porch.” To facilitate the movement of customers between Missouri and Illinois, Casino King
operates a fleet of shuttle buses that ferry customers to and from Busch Stadium. In the past, it
has also donated large sums of money to political groups in Missouri that support its positions on
gambling and gambling loss limit laws in Missouri.
Last year, Jared Wright, a resident of St. Louis County, Missouri went to Casino King to
gamble. He had previously seen and heard Casino King radio, TV and print media
advertisements in Missouri, and had also visited the Casino King Party Porch while attending a
Cardinal’s baseball game at Busch Stadium. Wright sat at a blackjack table for several hours
where he was served several alcoholic drinks. He had a good night gambling and won
approximately $47,500.
Casino King offers patrons who win substantial amounts at the casino a private room in which to
have their winnings counted, a security escort while the customer is still inside the casino, and a
security vehicle to follow his vehicle after it exits the casino to make sure the customer is not
harassed or followed. It also offers to wire winnings directly to the customer’s bank. The casino
implemented this policy after several “follow-home robberies.” During those robberies, casino
patrons had been targeted at Casino King, followed out of the casino, and robbed after they had
arrived at home.
Wright was visibly intoxicated when he cashed out his winnings and filled out the required tax
form at a cashier station in public view. Wright took a cab to back to his residence in Missouri.
Two individuals who saw him cash out his winnings at the casino followed Wright in a cab to his
home in Missouri, where they beat and robbed him of all his winnings. He claims that the casino
did not offer him any of its standard protections, even though Casino King was able to produce
video surveillance footage from the casino floor showing Wright being followed by two
individuals.
Wright sued Casino King in a Missouri court, alleging that the casino was negligent in not
providing him with warnings of the prior robberies and for not protecting him from such
activities. Casino King asserted that it offered to wire Wright’s winnings directly to his bank
account.
In response to Wright’s lawsuit, Casino King filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the
Missouri court did not have personal jurisdiction over the casino, an Illinois corporation. Wright
argued that Missouri’s long-arm statute gave it personal jurisdiction over the non-resident
defendant, Casino King. The Missouri long-arm statute provides:
Any person or firm, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, or any corporation, who in
person or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this section, thereby submits such
person, firm, or corporation, and, if an individual, his personal representative, to the jurisdiction
of the courts of this state as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of such acts:
(1) The transaction of any business within this state;
(2) The making of any contract within this state;
(3) The commission of a tortious act within this state;
(4) The ownership, use, or possession of any real estate situated in this state;
(5) The contracting to insure any person, property or risk located within this state at the time of
contracting;
(6) Engaging in an act of sexual intercourse within this state with the mother of a child on or near
the probable period of conception of that child.
You are the judge of the Missouri state trial court assigned to this case. How
do you rule on Casino King’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction?
FIRAC Paper Directions
Because this is your first FIRAC paper, I’m going to give you more guidance than you’ll receive
later in the semester when you have more experience using the FIRAC model both to analyze the
legal issues and to structure your paper.
While this paper raises many potential legal issues, I want you to concentrate exclusively on
whether a Missouri state court has personal jurisdiction over Casino King, an out-of-state
corporation. You’ll find all the legal rules you need to analyze the scenario in my lectures
and class discussions — you should not attempt to research this legal issue online.
In addition:
Discuss whether Wright could also have sued in federal district court based on that
court’s diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
Discuss whether Casino King was properly served with notice of the lawsuit
(service of process).
Discuss the legal standard for a court to grant a motion to dismiss (in Missouri
state courts or anywhere else).
Discuss the negligence issues underlying Wright’s lawsuit against Casino King.
You are not deciding whether Wright will win his lawsuit against the casino for the
injuries he sustained in the robbery (including the theft of his gambling winnings), only
whether the Missouri state trial court has personal jurisdiction over Casino King, such
that it may try Wright’s lawsuit.
