The legal battle between Miomni Gaming and Delaware North Gaming (DNG) hasn’t ended yet, but it’s not for a lack of trying. After several months of trying to get the case dismissed, Miomni is trying once again with a September 3, 2019 motion, CalvinAyre.com has learned.
But first, some history. Miomni was hired by DNG to take care of the sports betting operation for two West Virginia casinos. For a few months, everything seemed to be going fine, but then problems arose, DNG cut ties and started legal proceedings for a faulty product.
Miomni quickly figured out that one of its third party providers, Entergaming, had quietly added backdoor access to their sports betting software. They suspected that access had been used to create the problems, ultimately creating the legal fiasco. They took Entergaming to court and won a ruling, getting a judge to order Entergaming to reveal the whole thing.
Then on July 12, Miomni filed a motion to dismiss DNG’s suit based on several arguments. They argued that they had fulfilled their end of the bargain, that Michael Venner, CEO of Miomni, couldn’t be considered in the jurisidiction of the state of Delaware at any point. Finally, due to Entergaming’s bad faith participation, they suggested to the court that Miomni committed no fraud.
So what’s happened since? Well, on August 1, DNG amended their complaint, rewording or clarifying their suit against Miomni. In the new complaints, DNG argues that Miomni breached the Joint Venture agreement that created BetLucky, and committed fraud to even establish that agreement. They argue that Venner should be liable in his role creating and operating BetLucky.
Miomni is now filing to dismiss these amended complaints. On the first point, regarding what Miomni promised, they write. “Lacking any well-pleaded allegations, DNG instead asks this Court to find that Miomni breached obligations that are not present in the relevant contractual agreements.”
On the second point, regarding Venner’s role, they state that Venner is still considered outside Delaware’s jurisdiction, adding, “The fraud claim against Mr. Venner arose prior to the existence of BetLucky and does not relate to any duties owed by Mr. Venner to BetLucky or the internal business operations of BetLucky.”
Finally, with regards to the creation of Bet Lucky, they note that DNG’s complaint notes that the statements of alleged fraud are not based on Miomni or Venner’s accounts, but on a third party. And they note:
“The JV Agreement clearly sets out what Miomni was to contribute—certain software rights under a Software License, Development, Support and Services Agreement (“License Agreement”) between BetLucky and Miomni.”
So the next shoe now has to drop. Will the court side with Miomni, that DNG hasn’t found any legal basis to go after the software provider? Or will they let the suit continue, despite Miomni’s protests? We’ll find out soon.