Wednesday, April 15, 1998 | 10:10 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- A union attorney told the Nevada Supreme Court Tuesday that Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Las Vegas could not be sued for defamation by Sante Fe hotel-casino owner Paul Lowden.
Richard McCracken, representing the union, suggested the Paula Jones v. President Clinton lawsuit was a good example of why the lawsuit against the Culinary workers should not be revived because the allegations made by Jones were repeated across the nation. He said Clinton would have had to sue millions of people if he wanted to launch a defamation action.
But Norman Kirshman, attorney for Sahara Gaming Corp., owned by Lowden, said the casino executive was not a public figure and asked the court to reinstate the suit in Clark County.
While Lowden and the union have long battled over organizing the Sante Fe, this suit is not about organized labor. Instead, Kirshman said, it's about defamation and interference with business.
Lowden owned land in Henderson and was preparing to sell it for $15 million to Players International which wanted to develop a hotel-casino. As part of the deal, Lowden's company would have a management contract that would bring in about $2 million a year.
Union President Jim Arnold sent a letter to Edward Fishman, president of Players International, telling him about a lawsuit filed against Lowden's company in Mississippi in which he was accused of making misrepresentations. Lowden has denied the allegations.
Lowden's company managed a casino in Mississippi that went into bankruptcy and he filed a lawsuit against owners Treasure Bay Gaming and Resorts when his contract was terminated. A counter suit was filed accusing Lowden of misrepresenting the amount of expenses it would take to run the casino and the experience of his employees to work in the club.
Arnold quoted from the lawsuit in his letter to Fishman and added that there has been a "contentious labor dispute" with Lowden at the Sante Fe. Arnold warned Fishman that if he acquired the Henderson property the company "is putting itself in the middle of this dispute."
Lowden sued for defamation, civil conspiracy, interference with contract and interference with prospective economic advantage. District Judge Donald Mosley granted a pre-trial summary judgment in favor of the union, dismissing all four claims.
Kirshman argued the union was never a party to the suit in Mississippi. He said Arnold, although he quoted from the suit, never revealed that Lowden had denied the allegations.
He said the U.S. Supreme Court has held that those who republish opinions and rumors are not protected from defamation suit and that should include unverified complaints, he said.
McCracken said federal law requires the statements must be false and made with malice to establish defamation. In this case, the union president quoted directly from the lawsuit and the quotations were accurate, he said.
He said Arnold had no way to know whether the allegations of misrepresentation were true.
Arnold's letter to Fishman advised the statements in the lawsuit against Lowden were only allegations and were made in an unverified complaint. McCracken said this shows there was no recklessness, as is required in defamation suits.
"There is no way the union could know the truth or falsity of the allegations."
The court took the arguments under study and will rule later.
archive
