Judge dismisses defamation lawsuit against Sun

Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2006 | 7:13 a.m.

A District Court judge on Monday dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Las Vegas Sands Corp. against the Las Vegas Sun and Sun columnist and Business Editor Jeff Simpson.

Sands' complaint rested on the argument that the company was defamed in an April 2 column by Simpson in which he analyzed the chances of companies competing for a Singapore gaming license, a competition Sands won. Sands objected to Simpson's analysis that Sands had a "sorry Nevada regulatory record."

"I don't think that was a defamatory statement," Judge Michelle Leavitt said.

Leavitt said she reached that conclusion after reading the record of the state Gaming Control Board's February 2004 prosecution of Sands alleging 12 counts of violating gaming regulations.

Sands admitted to nine of the counts, pleaded the equivalent of "no contest" to the other three counts and paid a $1 million fine, the Sun stated in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The Sun noted that the allegations against Sands included "claims for 'rigging' drawings, record-keeping transgressions, and purchasing and reselling counterfeit goods to customers."

Leavitt pointed out that the Gaming Control records indicated "numerous violations" by Sands.

The newspaper, in its motion to dismiss the case, argued that Sands was attempting to chill speech protected by the First Amendment.

During Monday's hearing, Leavitt also threatened Sands' attorneys with sanctions based on procedural issues, namely Sands' filing of an amended lawsuit last week after she had set a hearing on the Sun's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Sun attorneys argued that the amended complaint amounted to an admission by Sands that it would not be able to win its original lawsuit.

The reason for the amended lawsuit, said Sands attorney Martin Singer of Los Angeles, was to clarify the original complaint.

"If it's only a clarification, you can go to the Nevada Supreme Court right now," Leavitt said, indicating she did not intend to change her mind about rejecting the lawsuit.

Leavitt warned Singer that if Sands pursued a new complaint that simply amounted to clarification of the original lawsuit, the company's attorneys could face penalties.

Singer said that Sands now wants to argue that Simpson and the Sun were guilty of "defamation by omission" by failing to report on the regulatory records of Sands' competitors.

Leavitt gave Sands, parent company of the Venetian, permission to approach the court with a new complaint against the newspaper if Sands can make a "substantively" different legal argument for defamation than that in the lawsuit she rejected.

Singer said he planned to do just that.

Leavitt said she was "offended" after Singer made reference during the hearing to how things are done differently in California courts.

Singer implied that Nevada attorneys with favorable "bar numbers" - a State Bar of Nevada number, based on longevity of service, assigned to attorneys - get preferential treatment in Nevada courts.

Leavitt responded that there's "really no hierarchy in the bar numbers."

"We act with dignity and respect in the courtroom," Leavitt told Singer.