Filed 1/29/20 Barrios v. The Commerce Casino Hotel CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

JUAN FRANCISCO BARRIOS,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

THE COMMERCE CASINO HOTEL,

Defendant and Respondent.

B293238

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC673977)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michelle Williams Court, Judge. Affirmed.

Juan Francisco Barrios, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Michael J. Ryan, Michael J. Ryan; Benedon & Serlin, Gerald M. Serlin and Wendy S. Albers, for Defendant and Respondent.

_________________________

One day in 2017, appellant Juan Francisco Barrios went to the Commerce Casino for the first time to play poker. Commerce Casino offers one-time jackpot payments to patrons who draw a royal flush hand while playing 3 card stud poker. A royal flush is an Ace, King, Queen, Jack and a 10 of the same suit. Barrios anted up for the jackpot. He drew Aces and Kings: a full house – three cards of the same rank along with two cards of the same rank. He won the hand, but the dealer and the dealer’s supervisor would not tender the jackpot to him. In eight separate causes of action, Barrios sued the casino in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for $200,000.

The recited facts were undisputed in the trial court. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the jackpot required a royal flush and Barrios drew a full house. Barrios appeals.

In an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we “independently examine the record in order to determine whether triable issues of fact exist to reinstate the action.” (Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138, 1142.) In performing our review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the losing party, and resolve any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in its favor. (Ibid.)

Here Barrios did not oppose the motion for summary judgment. The undisputed evidence was that he had to draw a royal flush to win the jackpot and all he drew was a full house. Although it wasn’t a dead man’s hand, the full house killed his chances for the big prize.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent to recover costs from appellant.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

STRATTON, J.

We concur:

BIGELOW, P. J.

WILEY, J.