In Kelly v. First Astri Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 462, plaintiff brought a tort action against the managers of a casino located on Indian lands, seeking recovery of his losses from "banking" games of twenty-one or blackjack, which were allegedly rigged with marked cards. But the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of the casino managers. (Id. at pp. 468-471, 496.) The "principal question presented was whether in the absence of a statutory right to recover his alleged gambling losses, Kelly's action was barred as a matter of California law and public policy." (Id. at p. 471.) Answering that question in the affirmative (Kelly, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 476), the court in Kelly reasoned (based on the authorities cited above) that California has a broad and long-standing "public policy against judicial resolution of civil claims arising out of gambling contracts or transactions" (id. at p. 477), that "this public policy, in the absence of a statutory right to bring such claims, applies to both actions for recovery of gambling losses and actions to enforce gambling debts" (id. at p. 489), and that the "Legislature has not enacted a statute permitting the use of the process of the courts in California to resolve the kind of gambling loss claims asserted in Kelly's amended complaint" (ibid.). Consequently, "in the absence of such a statutory right, California's strong public policy against judicial resolution of civil claims arising out of gambling contracts or transactions necessarily applies to Kelly's claims, notwithstanding shifting public attitudes about gambling and public acceptance of some forms of gambling both in California and on California Indian lands." (Ibid.)