## Facts

- John Harvey, a high-stakes gambler, obtained gambling credit at Caesars-affiliated casinos, including Harrah’s New Orleans and Horseshoe Tunica, by signing casino “markers” intended to be presented for payment like personal checks.
- Harvey executed approximately $3 million in markers, including $850,000 at Horseshoe Tunica, and understood the casinos could present the markers if unpaid within 30 days.
- Harvey failed to pay the markers, requested delay in presentment, and placed stop-payment orders when at least one casino deposited the markers.
- After collection efforts failed, Harrah’s New Orleans referred the matter to the Orleans Parish District Attorney, who charged Harvey under Louisiana’s worthless-check statute.
- Harvey later reached an agreement to satisfy the Harrah’s New Orleans marker debt; the criminal charges were dismissed.
- Harvey sued multiple Caesars-related entities for torts arising from the criminal case and related collection conduct; Horseshoe Tunica counterclaimed for $850,000 plus interest and attorneys’ fees.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on Harvey’s tort claims (including malicious prosecution, false arrest, and abuse of process) arising from the worthless-check prosecution and related conduct.
2. Whether the district court erred in calculating prejudgment interest on Horseshoe Tunica’s $850,000 counterclaim.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying Harvey’s motion to enforce an alleged settlement agreement.
4. Whether the district court erred by awarding Horseshoe Tunica $0 in attorneys’ fees.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment for the casino defendants on all of Harvey’s claims.
- Affirmed judgment for Horseshoe Tunica on its $850,000 counterclaim and affirmed the prejudgment interest award.
- Affirmed denial of Harvey’s motion to compel enforcement of an alleged settlement.
- Affirmed the final award of $0 in attorneys’ fees to Horseshoe Tunica.

## Legal Principles

- At summary judgment, a plaintiff must present specific evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact on each element of the asserted tort claims.
- For malicious prosecution and related tort theories premised on criminal proceedings, an independent prosecutorial charging decision and the existence of probable cause can defeat causation, lack-of-probable-cause, and malice elements.
- A party seeking attorneys’ fees bears the burden to substantiate and, where required, segregate compensable work performed for that party from work performed for other jointly represented parties; failure to do so can support denial of fees.
- A party moving to enforce a settlement must show an enforceable agreement on the record; an insufficient showing supports denial of enforcement.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld dismissal of Harvey’s tort claims tied to the casinos’ referral of unpaid markers for prosecution, affirmed the principal and prejudgment interest on Horseshoe Tunica’s marker debt counterclaim, found no enforceable settlement on the record, and sustained a $0 fee award because Horseshoe Tunica did not adequately segregate and prove recoverable fees.


Harvey v. Caesars Ent. Operating Co., 790 F. App’x 582 (5th Cir. 2019)