A California federal judge dismissed a suit brought by a woman claiming that corruption and bribery had destroyed a case she had brought against Steve Wynn, the founder and ousted CEO of Wynn Resorts, and other company executives. The judge determined that California wasn’t able to oversee the case.
Wynn Wins Another Lawsuit
Angelica Limcaco is a former Wynn Las Vegas salon manager who claimed she was intimidated and blacklisted after reporting to her supervisors about Wynn’s alleged 2005 rape of one of her workers. US District Judge Ronald Lew ruled that Limcaco’s case was not admissible in California. He also stated that Limcaco’s claims of corruption and bribery were based on circumstantial evidence and “implausibly speculative assumptions.”
The case stems from a prior lawsuit that Limcaco filed in federal court in Nevada in September 2018. She claimed at the time that she was fired for reporting sexual assault allegations against one of her employees to her supervisor. In the lawsuit, Limcaco’s attorneys claimed that their client had reported the same incident to Wynn Resorts executives. A Wall Street Journal article published in 2018 alleges that Steve Wynn forced a manicurist to have sex. She later settled for $7.5 million.
Judge Miranda Du dismissed the Nevada case in April 2019. He ruled that the claims were not within the statute of limitations. Limcaco’s attorneys cited a number of events to show that Wynn Resorts used donations for a non-profit law office to influence Du’s decision in California.
A panel was formed in December 2018 to select a replacement magistrate judge. The panel included former Nevada Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, also the executive director of Southern Nevada’s Legal Aid Center. The center had received donations from Wynn Resorts since 2017.
Elayna Yachah, Wynn Resorts’ lawyer, was selected to fill Du’s vacancy as a magistrate judge. Limcaco’s lawyers argued that Youchah was tapped for the vacancy because Buckley conspired with Wynn Resorts.
Lew was skeptical about the connections in his dismissal of the case. Limcaco’s theory relies on a “chain of causation that requires numerous implausibly speculative assumptions” to link the payments and the dismissal. The judge stated that there is no evidence the Nevada District Court would have decided differently if the defendants had revealed their donations or if the defendant never donated.
After Monday’s ruling in California, Buckley stated that the outcome was exactly as she had expected. She added, “The filing was based on fabrications that are in stark contrast to my life-long commitment to the rule of law.”
Limcaco’s attorney, Jordan Matthews, said that he was disappointed by Lew’s decision, asserting, “While we are disappointed with the recent decision, we realize that there are important nuances and the Wynn parties have a history of relying on procedural delay tactics and distractions to avoid ever getting to the substance of the allegations against them—the situation is no different here. We intend to diligently protect Ms. Limcaco’s rights and look forward to promptly resolving these issues with the Ninth Circuit.” He added that he plans to appeal to the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals before Wynn CEO Matt Maddox leaves in January.