Sheldon Adelson continues to fight against Las Vegas Court Decision
Thursday September 03,2015 : ADELSON HIRES TOP LAWYER FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION CASE
More fireworks in prospect as casino mogul's legal team accuse judge of bias and hostility, and seek to overturn jurisdictional decision.
Las Vegas Sands mogul Sheldon Adelson continues to fight against a Las Vegas district court's decision that it has jurisdiction to hear a "wrongful termination" case initiated by former Sands China CEO Steven Jacobs Adelson's legal team had argued that the issue fell under the jurisdiction of Macau, but Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez ruled that the case be heard in her court after hearing that major decisions were made by Adelson in Las Vegas.
Adelson's Sands China company has now taken the case to the Nevada Supreme Court, and top legal expert Alan Dershowitz has been hired to augment the Adelson legal team.
Associated Press reports that the team argued Tuesday that Sands China is registered in the Cayman Islands and does business in China, particularly the Asian gambling enclave of Macau, putting it outside the jurisdiction of the southern Nevada courtroom despite Judge Gonzalez's ruling that the case can proceed because of the corporate and decision-making connections to Las Vegas.
Dershowitz suggested a simplified hypothetical case of a Sands China waiter spilling soup on a Macau customer in Macau, arguing that in such a case the customer could not sue in Las Vegas, and suggested the current issue was similar.
The Sands China legal team also attacked Judge Gonzalez's decision in May that the case could proceed in her court, asking that the judge be prevented from further presiding over the Jacobs case and accusing her of "bias and hostility" toward Adelson.
Responding, Jacobs' legal advisers accused Sands China of misconduct and deceit. "Again, Sands China confirms that any judge who does not acquiesce in its conduct or who confronts it must be pushed aside in favor of someone who will supposedly give it a pass," the team suggested.
The Nevada Supreme Court has yet to rule on the matter.
