Circle K and the Arizona Lottery appeared by video in Maricopa County Superior Court on Friday to press a legal fight over a $12.8 million lottery ticket that hit the jackpot in November, but the case moved only incrementally because two people with potential claims remain missing. The dispute centers on a single winning ticket printed at a convenience store; the company that runs the store brought suit to establish who is entitled to the prize, even as the former employee who took custody of the paper ticket after the drawing and the customer who requested but did not pay for some of the tickets could not be located for service of process. Court participants and lawyers acknowledged at the hearing that, at this stage, no one is certain where those two potential claimants are, leaving the lawsuit stalled until they are identified and officially served.
The Arizona Lottery headquarters in Phoenix, where officials are trying to determine ownership of a $12.8 million winning ticket after two potential claimants could not be located.
The man who has been most visibly connected to the paper ticket is a former store manager, identified in court filings as Robert Gawlitza. Attorneys for Circle K say Gawlitza came into the Circle K on Bell Road at 56th Street in Phoenix the morning after the drawing, discovered the winning ticket sitting unsold behind the register, and then clocked out, changed out of his uniform and purchased the ticket for $10. Circle K says it later took custody of the ticket and filed suit asking the court to determine ownership. At Friday’s hearing, Circle K’s lawyer, Amanda Gray, told the judge that Gawlitza is no longer employed by the company, and that repeated attempts to serve him with the lawsuit have failed. Gray said the company has tried to deliver the papers on two separate occasions and is prepared to try a third location; she added she may ask the judge to allow alternative means of service and that the filings already have been provided to Gawlitza via email.
Efforts to contact Gawlitza outside of the courtroom also have been unsuccessful. Court filings and the company’s lawyer reflect that calls and emails associated with him did not lead to contact, and a social-media profile linked to Gawlitza was set to reject most incoming messages. A Circle K spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for additional information about his employment status or why he left the company. Court observers noted that participating in the lawsuit would be the clearest way for Gawlitza to press any claim to the $12.8 million prize, yet the record shows he had not responded to service when the case was presented for the judge’s consideration on Friday.
The other person who may have a legitimate claim is a customer who entered the same store on the day of the Nov. 24 drawing and asked for $85 worth of tickets in a multi-draw game called The Pick. Court documents say that the customer paid for 60 of the tickets but left 25 unpurchased; those 25 tickets were printed and set aside behind the counter but were not sold to anyone else before the winning numbers were drawn. Arizona Lottery regulations treat printed but unsold tickets as legal wagers, and vendors pay the Lottery for every ticket the machine prints, meaning printed tickets are generally considered the vendor’s property. Even so, the company that ran the store has acknowledged the possibility that the person who requested the unsold tickets might press a claim if they can be located and served in the case.
Circle K has been pursuing the identity of the customer who left the 25 printed tickets unpaid for, and at the hearing the company disclosed that it had a Bank of America debit-card number associated with the transaction. Gray told the court that Bank of America officials have been reluctant to provide the account holder’s name and contact information despite repeated requests from the company, prompting the judge, Joseph Kreamer, to agree to sign an order compelling the bank to produce the necessary information. The order, as outlined from the bench, will require Bank of America to turn over the records within ten days, a deadline the judge set to advance the process of serving the unnamed customer in the lawsuit. "That information is critical to be able to identify Jane Doe," Gray said during the hearing.
With both the former manager and the unknown customer still not in court, the litigation remains in a holding pattern. Kreamer said the record is not yet ready for rulings on ownership because the necessary parties have not been served. "We’re nowhere near that," he said, also noting flatly that the case cannot proceed to resolution until the parties that must be present have been brought into the lawsuit. To prevent procedural deadlines from mooting the dispute while the parties work to locate potential claimants, the Arizona Lottery and Circle K took steps to protect the ticket itself and the window to claim the prize.
The day before the hearing, the Arizona Lottery sent a letter to the company saying it would suspend the 180-day claim period for the prize, which otherwise was due to expire on May 23. Circle K turned the physical ticket over to the Lottery and the agency verified the ticket’s authenticity, then agreed to hold it in escrow while the court sorts out who is entitled to the proceeds. In the courtroom, Kreamer granted the requested relief and issued a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that will prevent the claim period from expiring while the litigation is pending. That action ensures the ticket will remain secured by the Lottery and keeps the possibility of a claim open until the ownership question has been finally resolved by the court.
Moving forward, the next steps outlined at the hearing center on locating and serving the two people who may assert rights to the ticket. Circle K will continue attempts to serve the former manager and seeks permission for alternative service if standard methods fail; the company also expects to receive bank records after the court compels Bank of America to produce the account-holder information within ten days. Once those individuals are identified and brought into the case, the court will be in a position to take up the parties’ competing claims to the $12.8 million prize. Until then, the Lottery will hold the validated ticket and the litigation will remain focused on identifying the missing potential claimants and establishing the parties’ legal rights to the jackpot.