An appeals court has sent a high-profile lawsuit against Resorts World Las Vegas back to the US District Court for further review, giving high-stakes gambler Robert “R.J.” Cipriani another chance to pursue his claims.
Missaplied Judicial Estoppel
Cipriani, who posts online under the handle “RobinHood 702,” had been pushing his case for years, alleging that Resorts World allowed another gambler, Robert Alexander, to harass him repeatedly while on the casino floor.
The dispute initially ended in dismissal by District Judge Miranda Du, prompting Cipriani to appeal in October.
On Monday, Ninth Circuit Judges Mark Bennett, Gabriel Sanchez, and Holly Thomas ruled that the district court had misapplied judicial estoppel in dismissing Cipriani’s claims of negligence, innkeeper liability, and negligent supervision against Resorts World.
Judicial estoppel is a legal principle designed to prevent a party from taking contradictory positions in court. The panel did, however, uphold the dismissal of claims against former Resorts World president Scott Sibella.
“Supposed Inconsistency”
“The court rested its determination on a supposed inconsistency between Cipriani’s assertion in a state court action that Resorts World ejected Alexander presumably to ensure Cipriani’s safety, and his allegation in this federal action that Resorts World disregarded his safety by encouraging or allowing Alexander to harass him.”, said the judges.
“Cipriani’s allegation that 3 24-7106 Resorts World allowed or encouraged Alexander to harass him for several weeks before ejecting him is not “clearly inconsistent” with his earlier assertion that Alexander was eventually ejected from the casino—both can be true.”, they further argued, adding “Cipriani has failed to show that Sibella is an ‘innkeeper’ within the meaning of NRS § 651.015. The statute attaches liability to the ‘owner’ or ‘keeper’ of a hotel.”
During an October hearing, Resorts World attorney Tamara Beatty Peterson argued that Cipriani’s story had shifted between filings, while Sibella’s defense noted that he could not be held personally responsible under negligence or innkeeper liability laws.
The timing of the case’s rehearing has not yet been set.