Cheeks v. Powerball
Civil Action No. 2024-2724
D.D.C.Jun 6, 2025Background
- John Conrad Cheeks filed a pro se lawsuit against the Florida Lottery, claiming it owed him the $320,600,000 Powerball grand prize based on numbers he saw on the DC Lottery's website.
- Cheeks purchased his ticket in Washington, D.C. and alleged the Florida Lottery drew numbers matching his ticket, then awarded a larger jackpot to someone else months later.
- Defendant Florida Lottery moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient process/service, and failure to state a claim.
- Cheeks sent the complaint by certified mail and provided documents including a D.C. Office of Lottery and Gaming declaration showing the posted winning numbers were "test numbers" posted in error, not actual drawing results.
- Cheeks did not directly respond to the jurisdictional or service arguments and continued to assert he was owed the prize.
- The key legal question addressed was whether the federal district court in D.C. had personal jurisdiction over the Florida Lottery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal Jurisdiction (General) | Florida Lottery is proper defendant | Florida Lottery is only at home in Florida; not D.C. | No general jurisdiction—Florida Lottery not at home in D.C. |
| Personal Jurisdiction (Specific) | Contact via Powerball game in D.C. | No relevant contacts or activities in D.C. | No specific jurisdiction—no Florida Lottery contacts in D.C. |
| Sufficiency of Process/Service | Served by USPS certified mail | Improper service under rules for state agency | Not reached (dismissed on jurisdiction) |
| Failure to State a Claim/Right to Prize | Numbers matched; prize owed | No contract/statutory breach; test numbers were error | Not reached (dismissed on jurisdiction) |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requires plausible facts)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction "at home" standard)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limits of general jurisdiction)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 592 U.S. 351 (general jurisdiction in places of incorporation/principal business)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment for specific jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (minimum contacts must be defendant's, not plaintiff's, for specific jurisdiction)