Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Universal Gaming Grp. v. Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

Universal Gaming Grp. v. Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division

March 31, 2017, Decided

No. 1-15-0878

Opinion

ORDER

 [*P1]  Held: The plaintiff's complaint alleging defamation, commercial disparagement, and violation of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act was properly dismissed pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2012)) for failing to state a cause of action. The defendants' cross-appeal is dismissed, as the trial court's dismissal order was not adverse to the defendants.

 [*P2]  The plaintiff-appellant, Universal Gaming Group, LLC (UGG) appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County dismissing its complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2012). The defendants-appellees filed a cross-appeal, to the extent the trial court declined to dismiss on the basis of the Citizen Participation Act (735 ILCS 110/1 et seq. (West 2012)). For the following reasons, we affirm.

 [*P3]  BACKGROUND

 [*P4]  The plaintiff, UGG, owns and operates cash-operated electronic video game machines, known as gaming "terminals," that allow [**2]  customers to play games such as poker and blackjack. UGG operates over 600 video gaming terminals in Illinois. Such "terminal operators" must be licensed pursuant to the Video Gaming Act (VGA), 230 ILCS 40/5 (West 2014). The VGA grants the Illinois Gaming Board (IGB) with jurisdiction to supervise all gaming operations. Pursuant to the VGA, the IGB conducts background investigations on applicants seeking licenses to operate gaming terminals. UGG has been a licensed terminal operator since 2012.

 [*P5]  The defendants consist of a law firm, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP (Taft), and Paul Jenson, an attorney at Taft. According to the complaint, "Jenson's legal practice specializes in gaming law, particularly gaming law before the IGB." The defendants' clients include terminal operators who compete with UGG.

 [*P6]  UGG's claims against the defendants arise out of an email from the defendants which commented on a 2014 settlement agreement between UGG and the IGB, after the IGB alleged that conduct by one of UGG's employees precluded the renewal of UGG's license.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2017 IL App (1st) 150878-U *; 2017 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 678 **

UNIVERSAL GAMING GROUP, an Illinois limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP and PAUL JENSON, Defendant-Appellees and Cross-Appellants

Notice: THIS ORDER WAS FILED UNDER SUPREME COURT RULE 23 AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT BY ANY PARTY EXCEPT IN THE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOWED UNDER RULE 23(e)(1).

Subsequent History: Appeal denied by Universal Gaming Grp. v. Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, 2017 Ill. LEXIS 741 (Ill., Sept. 27, 2017)

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 14 L 10145. Honorable Janet Adams Brosnahan, Judge Presiding.

Disposition: Affirmed; cross-appeal dismissed.

CORE TERMS

email, gaming, disparagement, terminal, settlement agreement, license, cross-appeal, defendants', settlement, video, notice of appeal, motion to dismiss, trial court, defamatory, defamation, renewal, finder, compliance, defamation claim, allegations, innocent, damages, reasons, deceptive trade practices, defamation per se, cause of action, sales agent, misleading, verifiable, employees