Two workers in lottery pool sue over $118 million ticket

Comment #82

dommom — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:14:12 GMT

I think they have a case-unless for some UNBELIEVABLE reason they seperated the tickets into two envelopes: 'past winning proceeds for new tickets' and 'this weeks players'.

Comment #81

Lucky5of5 — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:11:54 GMT

I agree ... up to the last step. The members who paid more money into the May 4 drawing may have contributed varying amounts. If so, then their winning amounts should be calculated the same way.

Comment #80

maximumfun — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:01:42 GMT

this just isnt going to end until some judge creates enough 'history'/presidence for these cases to have a clean/clear-cut arguable line of either defense or blarney

Comment #79

Jill34786 — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:52:31 GMT

Two more workers from the bakery came forward to claim they were also part of this pool bringing the total to five.

The latest 2 individuals had claimed that they last contributed to the pool on March, 30th and were not asked to contribute to the May 4th drawing. They claim they would have chipped in IF asked.

Two of the twelve winners were first time players.

In the real world it is each individuals reponsibility to contribute to a pool, if you don't pay your share for the upcoming dr... [ More ]

Comment #78

rad242 — Sun, 20 May 2012 21:46:16 GMT

The author was being FACETIOUS.

Comment #77

OldSchoolPa — Sun, 20 May 2012 21:39:49 GMT

Blah blah blah. Good idea, but runs counter to why people participate in pools. If I only have one set of numbers at play, the last thing I want to do is create a shared jackpot scenario. People do pools to have a few addional opportunities to win. The perceived increased chance at winning is what drives people to pool money, not the increased and definite prospect of sharing that jackpot with people they may or may not like or care about.

Comment #76

maximumfun — Sun, 20 May 2012 19:23:56 GMT

**sigh** (muttering to self BE the pool , be THE pool , be the POOL

Comment #75

maximumfun — Sun, 20 May 2012 19:23:04 GMT

ahh ridge - i have much more modest expectations (BE the pool...)

... sides we only need 1 atlas

... and since YOUR job is more volumous than that (universe being a tab bit... bigger)

i will continue with the mundane...

Comment #74

rdgrnr — Sun, 20 May 2012 15:27:21 GMT

I can not BE the pool.

I am far too busy BEING one with the universe

Comment #73

rad242 — Sun, 20 May 2012 14:38:43 GMT

Max:

Regulars on here know you are PRO individual but notice how you gained an ally along the way who will now feel encouraged on his/her suicide mission? lol.

Comment #72

LottoAce — Sun, 20 May 2012 11:24:04 GMT

This is an example of what can happen when a pool is not run correctly. No kind of written agreement,

and greedy, unethical people with any buisiness transaction can bring about hard feelings and bad blood.

These men have a legitimate case, and there going to win, simply because, they owned a share of the funds

that bought the winning ticket.

whats worse, is that a couple of Lincoln lawyers are going to get PAID for

putting on a courtroom dog and pony show. when in fact, in thi... [ More ]

Comment #71

haymaker — Sun, 20 May 2012 02:48:36 GMT

Yea, I was suprised your post was taken seriously,

I mean you did start it w/ a lol. LOL

Comment #70

maximumfun — Sun, 20 May 2012 02:32:01 GMT

lol - i was teasing with my previous post. Since I dislike pools, and do not think that there is any safe way to run them and be protected from people who want what they want... the ONLY way that makes a modicum of sense is to simply give everyone their own ticket. (to my way of thinking)

yes i realize that that is a silly idea. 10 tickets for a pool of 10 with all 10 tickets with the same identical numbers would be a statement in the absurd... as is pool participation (in my opinion).

eve... [ More ]

Comment #69

Cletu$2 — Sun, 20 May 2012 00:53:10 GMT

Well put!Couldn't have said it any better.

Comment #68

Simba774 — Sun, 20 May 2012 00:25:14 GMT

Pools are for fools.

Comment #67

larry3100 — Sat, 19 May 2012 23:33:38 GMT

Yes,we did win,but only for maybe $20 or so.

Comment #66

rad242 — Sat, 19 May 2012 23:26:46 GMT

The pool ever won a jackpot

Comment #65

larry3100 — Sat, 19 May 2012 23:23:49 GMT

I was a lottery syndicate leader at a company I worked for. I would get $1 from all my co-workers who wanted to participate, and anyone who wanted to put more money into the lottery pool, I would tell them that it's only $1 from each participant.I would make copies of the lottery tickets with all the participants names. And when we did win some money in that game, I would put that money in the next game, with just those co-workers who participated in the win. I didn't have a problem.

Comment #64

rad242 — Sat, 19 May 2012 21:32:10 GMT

What are you suggesting here?

15 people in a pool each buy the same 10 numbers? If that's the case, that is completely non sensical. On my first read, I thought you were suggesting that the group of 15 buy 150 different combos and each hold 10 of the tickets purchased. In that instance, I promise you the one holding the winning ticket would collect claiming these were his or her individual numbers.

I am sure many like you thought they had their fool proof way of effectively runni... [ More ]

Comment #63

NC3361 — Sat, 19 May 2012 21:21:32 GMT

wait... I am confused... I thought a pool will buy the same set of numbers for every draw and hoping it will hit one day??? are you saying that they buy different set of numbers each draw

Comment #62

rad242 — Sat, 19 May 2012 20:51:54 GMT

I misread your previous post - my apologies. I thought you meant buying the same numbers times the number of people in the pool. I don't see how what you are saying clearly now as a means of alleviating the drama though. One person will attempt as we've seen in recent times to run off with the whole loot if they possessed the ticket that matched all six. As in this case at the top of the thread what if you can't get in touch with me before the drawing to give me my 10?

You can never ant... [ More ]

Comment #61

Nikoteen3 — Sat, 19 May 2012 20:45:51 GMT

I dont think thats the point of a pool. They want 150 different number combination for the 15 people. Why would you join a pool to buy 10 tickets

Comment #60

NC3361 — Sat, 19 May 2012 20:31:58 GMT

I think its a very good way to handle pool. Let's say a pool has 15 people and buy 150 tickets for each draw. Then every member should get (10) tickets :)

It is not costly, but it might be time consuming. I guess you will have to weight it against the event of a lawsuit :) rather safe than sorry

Comment #59

rad242 — Sat, 19 May 2012 20:17:19 GMT

That would be costly and defeat the purpose of the pool which is to be in position to buy a large number of tickets

Comment #58

haymaker — Sat, 19 May 2012 20:13:57 GMT

LOL Good one

Comment #57

maximumfun — Sat, 19 May 2012 20:08:57 GMT

lol - how about...

1. everyone put in the price of 1 ticket into the pool.

2. pool manager buys tickets with the exact same number on each ticket.

3. pool manager hands out tickets, one to each member.

4. if they win - everyone cashes in their OWN ticket for their OWN portion of the pool.

5. those IN the pool have a ticket to prove it. those NOT in - dont have a ticket.

(typed using 'innocent-look-in-eyes' font

Comment #56

Stack47 — Sat, 19 May 2012 17:57:29 GMT

but there is somebody who will tell us the smart way to run a pool. And if that pool wins the jackpot we'll have another article about a another lawsuit.

Comment #55

rdgrnr — Sat, 19 May 2012 14:43:36 GMT

This is just one more example of a lesson not learned. A never-ending saga of having to deal with all the hassles that always arrise and the inevitable sleazy, slimy lawyers who will take and steal as much of your money as they possibly can.

Stay out of pools.

They rarely win anyway, compared to individuals.

Play your own numbers, bet your own money, win your own jackpot.

And you won't have to deal with all the headaches and sleazy lawyers dripping slime all over what should be a cel... [ More ]

Comment #54

KY Floyd — Sat, 19 May 2012 05:16:30 GMT

All I know, based on the common sense of Property Ownership

It's not about property ownership . It's a contract dispute that's governed by contract law. If the claims in the article are true the two people suing were members of the pool and participated in the winning drawing. As members they're entitled to share in the winnings under the same rules as all other members. If those rules are that prizes are shared equally they're entitled to equal shares.

A party (or parties) to a contract... [ More ]

Comment #53

rdgrnr — Sat, 19 May 2012 02:28:28 GMT

Some girl'd giggle and I'd get red

And some guy'd laugh and I'd bust his head

I'll tell ya, life ain't easy for an ol' boy in a pool

Good thing I don't get in pools cuz Bubba don't play dat.

Comment #52

Masone — Fri, 18 May 2012 22:08:32 GMT

Like I said, it depends on the rules of their pool. If the pool has a $2 buy-in, and you decide to put a little extra in, that's up to you, but only $2 was required to get in. If Johnny decides to get bold with a $10 bet, why should the rest of the pool suffer? I'm just sayin, I wouldn't join a pool with any other set of rules. If you're telling me the buy-in is $5, I don't want someone coming in out of nowhere and putting in $20 and taking money away from everyone else.... [ More ]

Comment #51

Pick'em — Fri, 18 May 2012 19:06:24 GMT

NEVER EVER EVER EVER PLAY in a Lottery Pool without a Lottery Pool Contract. I don't care if they're your best friends, relatives or even your own mother or father. Today, we live in a wicked world, were values are put on the back burner and trust isn't everything. I play in a Lottery Pool, there are ten onf us. we all signed a contract, and if anyone wihes to drop out it has to be in writing, that way if someone does drop out we have it on paper, no reason to go to court, to hold up everyones m... [ More ]

Comment #50

dpoly1 — Fri, 18 May 2012 14:11:45 GMT

Todd Vader is wise!

I always play on my own, but I don't have any coworkers anywho

Comment #49

Cletu$2 — Fri, 18 May 2012 13:57:40 GMT

If you like fighting with your co-workers...join a lottery pool.If you enjoy giving lawyers a share of your winnings...join a lottery pool.If you want to avoid the fights with your co-workers and avoid paying the lawyers a share of your winnings...then say NO when invited to join a lottery pool.Seems pretty simple to me.Play your own numbers and you don't have to share with anyone except Uncle Sam your state, through taxation.

Comment #48

Lottery Playa — Fri, 18 May 2012 13:39:15 GMT

COMPLETELY disagree! So you're saying if I put in $10 to a lottery pool and everyone else put in a $1, that those winners are ALSO entitled to an equal share of the jackpot. What are you smoking? Where is the fairness in that? That does NOT make one ounce of sense.

I remember a story on The Lottery Changed My Life where people who worked at some Tiki restauraunt pooled for the Lottery. Well, they hit. The woman who put in $2 got a higher percentage than those who put in $1.

So, while i r... [ More ]

Comment #47

martingorgeous — Fri, 18 May 2012 12:15:17 GMT

What a sad story.

It looks like the people who won the grand prize that day have forgotten that they were once upon a time just poor Pita Pan employees making Greek pitas, and other breads.

I predict that their Mega Millions prize money will bring them ONLY bad luck unless they reach a compromise with Franco and Medina.

I hope the lucky winners change their minds, so that all of them in the lottery pool win.

Comment #46

savagegoose — Fri, 18 May 2012 11:39:25 GMT

anyone who runs a pool , heres a nickle , ill pay you the rest later.

Comment #45

Masone — Fri, 18 May 2012 09:06:06 GMT

It depends on how their pool is set up. If it's simply a set buy-in pool and everyone gets an equal share in the event of a jackpot win regardless of the amount they put in($1 vs $2), then these two should be entitled to equal share of the overall jackpot. I've done a pool before and that's how we set it up. Each buy-in gave the person an equal share in the event of a jackpot win. I've sinced stopped doing pools, but I sure as hell wouldn't join a pool if those weren't the rules. In other words,... [ More ]

Comment #44

nanaimo — Fri, 18 May 2012 07:10:33 GMT

j.w.blue's answer is the right method to distribute the lottery funds this is the only way to have the funds divided up and makes lots of sense. well done jwblue

Comment #43

OldSchoolPa — Fri, 18 May 2012 06:23:15 GMT

Pools are for fools. What should be a time of total elation is instead a time of contention and strife. I would rather have less of a chance of winning with my few buck per draw plays than to win any amount of prize with a pool of fools.

Comment #42

Factorem — Fri, 18 May 2012 05:56:20 GMT

In the past, lottery prizes for pool members have been split in proportion to the amount of money contributed by each pool member. So, a player that contributes $1.00 would get half the amount that a player that contribuited $2.00 gets. This traditional precedent is most likely to be played out again in this matter

The contributions of money to purchase the winning ticket were not equal, and therfore the sharing of prizes should not be equal.

What is accepted shared equal among all, is an

Comment #41

maximumfun — Fri, 18 May 2012 05:27:46 GMT

Great line. Gotta love Shakespeare! Shakespeare slammed lawyers in several lovely different ways in different penned pieces (he musta had his share of run-ins with them).

In Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio uses the line O'er lawyers' fingers, who straight dream on fees;

In King Lear , the fool defends a speech in riddles by comparing it to an unfee'd lawyer .

Comment #40

Factorem — Fri, 18 May 2012 05:24:27 GMT

The $9 was used on behalf of the pool players that contributed money to purchase the tickets that won the prize of $9.

The $118m Jackpot was won with shares of money that belonged to the two plaintiffs. There was an existing authorization by the two plaintiffs, that saw their share in the $9, share in the pool of a larger fund, that won the $118m Jackpot. I believe that the two plaintiffs should at least, get a proportion in the Jackpot, that equals their share of money contribution, as alrea... [ More ]

Comment #39

Masone — Fri, 18 May 2012 04:37:09 GMT

They did put in for the drawing. The $9 was their particpation in the winning jackpot drawing. It bought them their ticket in. That $9 has equal weight to the new money the pool received for the new drawing. Why would it be on a percentage basis? They already had an understanding that the $9 won in the previous drawing would be used in the next. It's the same thing if they had given these guys their share of the $9, only for them to hand it right back and say this is my buy-in into the next draw... [ More ]

Comment #38

tntea — Fri, 18 May 2012 02:22:15 GMT

Heck, why don't they just give the $9 to the two to split. Heck, they won the jackpot, they can afford to give all the previous winnings to the two who didn't play in the last draw..

Comment #37

Lottery Playa — Fri, 18 May 2012 02:12:35 GMT

Wow, equal share. They didn't even put in for this drawing, while others DID. So that means the others, according to your logic, should end up with equal share of the jackpot. A more equitable approach would be a percentage basis of the jackpot that those 2 who DID not pay into the winning jackpot drawing but from the $9 win plus whatever else was paid in additionally for the jackpot drawing. You would have to calculate what everyone put in, then come up with the figures if you use your logic. H... [ More ]

Comment #36

rad242 — Fri, 18 May 2012 02:03:10 GMT

Wisdom survives the ages - lol

Comment #35

rdgrnr — Fri, 18 May 2012 01:58:48 GMT

My favorite line from Skakespeare:

First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!

(From: Henry The Sixth

Comment #34

dallascowboyfan — Fri, 18 May 2012 01:42:26 GMT

Comment #33

Masone — Fri, 18 May 2012 00:16:58 GMT

They have legit claim to equal share. The $9 from the previous pool is their participation in the jackpot drawing. One could claim that had that $9 not existed, they would not have won it, especially since it was already established that the money won from the previous drawing would go towards the next. Sounds like a slam dunk case to me.

I think they should get equal share.

Comment #32

Lottery Playa — Thu, 17 May 2012 23:26:58 GMT

Reality is... these JackPot winners SHOULD NOT be liable to split the jackpot with the other NON-participants. The Roll over money that existed should simply be paid out according to percentage of the Lottery Pool to the 2 players that were in the pool previously. So $9.00 divided by number of players for that draw is what SHOULD be paid out to those individuals who were NOT a part of the JackPot winning draw.

If these Lottery Players who DID NOT participate were so concerned about NOT being... [ More ]

Comment #31

Wooddrive — Thu, 17 May 2012 22:01:11 GMT

People who are in charge of pools don't understand and outline the rules. people who play in pools don't understand the rules. I stopped contributing to pools at work because of this particular scenario and many, many others. I can see conflicts but some people are just blind or refuse to see the problem with inconsistent lottery pools. besides, I may give but I'm not sharing.

Comment #30

maringoman — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:57:13 GMT

That jackpot was bought by a $9 that was won from a previous draw. Its not hard math.

The plaintiffs DO NOT deserve an equal share with the others because they only contributed

to the jp via a previous win of $9. But this is just me being rational. Their lawyers will argue that

absent a written agreement, the JP should be divided EQUALLY among all the members. Ouch! Double ouch

Comment #29

YURAN — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:54:55 GMT

Keep in the mind that IF (keyword - 'IF !!!) pool wins BIG money... for example, jackpot in Powerball... then 100% any man or woman shows their hidden nature. Money changes people. Especially BIG money.

Comment #28

HaveABall — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:47:22 GMT

I wouldn't be in any sized lottery pool ever again [I wasn't even told how much small prize monies won were being rolled-over into purchasing additional draw lines each week]!

However, for those that are in, or considering entry into, a lottery pool -- make sure that the proposed leader of your lottery pool is a fair person (this is difficult, since they'd rarely be more than a mere acquaintance

Comment #27

YURAN — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:32:35 GMT

100%. Better to play alone than enjoy lawsuit if pool becomes 'lucky'. The reports about pool lawsuits appears again and again...

Comment #26

rad242 — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:04:10 GMT

Stack47: Here's the thing, a few of us on LP were actually hoping that this lottery pool win would be the one notable exception and some even commented as much as you'll find in the archives. Certainly if I had the time and resources, I would do a statistical analysis of lottery pool wins that did not wind up in litigation versus those that did. That would tell a very interesting story far more substantitve than our anecdotal remarks stemming from fading memories tainted by preconcieved biases.... [ More ]

Comment #25

Stack47 — Thu, 17 May 2012 18:50:34 GMT

The more I think about it, maybe we do agree because the last pool I was in continued until all the winnings were spent on more tickets plus kicking in a couple more bucks. A one time thing turned into multiple drawings and not exactly what I had in mind when I entered.

Hate to say it, but I was sort of relieved when we won nothing on the last drawing.

Comment #24

lowerAL251 — Thu, 17 May 2012 18:15:50 GMT

that's why I play my numbers by myself.

Comment #23

maximumfun — Thu, 17 May 2012 17:39:23 GMT

Comment #22

Jill34786 — Thu, 17 May 2012 17:30:20 GMT

I agree with Todd and feel there is merit to their lawsuit. It would be nice if they disclosed what additional funds were actually added tothe winning draw.

If these two gentleman can validate their claims of having been in the previous drawing then I feel the Judge will rule in their favor. They won't get an equal share but will be entitled to a decent cut.

Comment #21

Lucky SOB — Thu, 17 May 2012 17:21:25 GMT

they didnt collect the money on monday but on wednesday and werent told about it. they still had money in the poll from the $9 they won and kept to pay for the next poll. sounds like a good case to me

Comment #20

winwi5 — Thu, 17 May 2012 17:16:25 GMT

The 2 workers shouldn't get a dime they knew that every monday and thursday the group collects money for the drawing that seem to be the rules

They just felt some kind of way after not contributing that game and feel like they deserve some money that wasn't the agreement with the group.

The judge should send their attorneys away this is the typical story of lottery winners it's the greedy ones that know they didn't put money in for that game that tries to sue.

Comment #19

mcginnin56 — Thu, 17 May 2012 16:55:14 GMT

Lawyers are one of god's great gifts to mankind. If you should pursue becoming an ambulance chaser, you should take great pride and

reverence in this coveted position.

Comment #18

haymaker — Thu, 17 May 2012 16:39:25 GMT

Yea, they have a case alright, most of the claims you hear of are laughable, but still get heard by a judge.

watch this case closely, that rollover money is going to make all the difference.

Comment #17

rad242 — Thu, 17 May 2012 16:27:13 GMT

Fisher said he believes there are three additional Pita Pan employees with similar claims who are seeking lawyers.

I'll check in again with you after the other 3 clowns join the circus.

I want to be a LAWYER when I grow up

Comment #16

mcginnin56 — Thu, 17 May 2012 16:19:58 GMT

Still PRO-choice. These guy's look to have a SERIOUS crack at a getting a lions share of the lotto loot!

Wouldn't mind trading shoes with either of them.

Comment #15

time*treat — Thu, 17 May 2012 16:15:37 GMT

Is there a link to the story of the jackpot win

Comment #14

JWBlue — Thu, 17 May 2012 16:14:51 GMT

This is what the judge should do.

Take 9 and divide it by the total # of tickets purchased.

Take that percentage and multiply it by the total jackpot.

Take that number and divide it by the total number of people in the pool including the two people originally left out.

Subtract the amount given to the two people left out from the total jackpot.

Divide that amount equally by the remaning pool participants.

Example.

Assume the 11 each added $1.00.

Take 9 and

Comment #13

mcginnin56 — Thu, 17 May 2012 16:12:48 GMT

Comment #12

hearsetrax — Thu, 17 May 2012 15:54:08 GMT

Comment #11

RedStang — Thu, 17 May 2012 15:41:20 GMT

No copies. No names. I wish they were closer. I'd join the suit too.

Comment #10

dr65 — Thu, 17 May 2012 15:17:10 GMT

GREED.

How much money does one person need?

If more tickets were purchased from the $9 win, all that participated in the draw by paying to play the previous draw should be participating in collecting the jackpot win

now. It does not matter if the 2 were missed that day, it's POOL money, it all goes together. Maybe if they passed out winnings as they were won in cash, the 2 wouldn't

have a case. It was rolled over to buy more tickets....I believe they have a case. They claim they were... [ More ]

Comment #9

Mil$Winner! — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:58:55 GMT

No rolled eyes here. They might not be entitled to an equal share, if other players contributed extra money for the draw. But if previous winnings were rolled over, I'd be willing to bet that they are entitled to something.

I don't have anything against pools because they tend to win often enough. Having to go to court to get your money is better than not getting any money at all. I play alone though hehe.

Comment #8

lejardin — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:50:07 GMT

Rolling eyes lol, exactly what I thought until I read the whole story. this might be legitimate and not sour grapes.

Comment #7

B$Rizzle — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:44:31 GMT

I have to agree with this, especially if they were normal, consistent players of the pool. If The pool won $9 bux from the previous draw, that should have been included in the tickets towards the Jackpot win.

At the very least, they should divide the # of tickets purchased for the Jackpot win and calculate the percentage that each would have won from the 9 tickets from the previous draw. They could split that amount and include the 2 people that are suing. Then divide the remaining amoun... [ More ]

Comment #6

zxchris — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:30:53 GMT

if they indeed had rollover money in the pool, why would they not just include them in the winnings... they would still get more money than they will ever need... people are so greedy.

Comment #5

rad242 — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:23:12 GMT

As you would see in my post, we agree on their legal standing if their arguments are indeed valid. On the matter of participating in pools, let's just say we'll agree to disagree.

Consider this though: Think those other clowns who collected will be presenting as a possible argument that the first 9 picks didn't produce the winning jackpot? Ergo, those who didn't contribute additional monies in that drawing do not qualify? lol!

I have heard more insane arguments presented in court, so I wou... [ More ]

Comment #4

Stack47 — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:12:10 GMT

Jose Franco and Marco Medina were regular participants in a lottery pool with co-workers at the bakery for about a year, according to the suit.

I see nothing wrong with occasionally pooling when the jackpots are huge, but this is exactly what happens when pools are played every week and some players are in some drawings and out others. The difference in this story is the previous winnings were part of the pool and if a share of the winnings belonged to these two, they have an excellent law s... [ More ]

Comment #3

gocart1 — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:04:39 GMT

This is the reason i dislike lottery pools...

Comment #2

rad242 — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:52:06 GMT

McGinnin56: Where are you! Wanna share those views again on Lottery PRO Choice? Lol.

It seems the Winsome Twosome does have a case reading this preliminary report, but that's not why I roll my eyes HRH Todd. I am PRO individual and do not support pools...lottery politics - lol.

Comment #1

Todd — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:43:33 GMT

Most people are probably rolling their eyes at the prospect of another lottery pool lawsuit, but they might have a case here, if lottery tickets were purchased with the previous drawing's winnings.

Two workers in lottery pool sue over $118 million ticket

Lottery Post — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:42:24 GMT

Two employees of a Chicago Heights, Illinois, bakery are suing co-workers over a $118 million Mega Millions jackpot, alleging they were unfairly left out of the winnings.

Jose Franco and Marco Medina were regular participants in a lottery pool with co-workers at the bakery for about a year, according to the suit.

The group won $9 during a drawing on May 1, and there was an understanding that the money would be used to purchase more tickets for a May 4 drawing, the suit said. Some employees... [ More ]