Steve Jacobs and Las Vegas Sands argued their case before the Nevada Supreme Court in Carson City

Todd Bice, an attorney for Steve Jacobs whose 2010 dismissal prompted the lawsuit, asked the court to uphold the May ruling of Clark County District Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez, who keeps the lawsuit in Nevada courts rather than moving it to Macau. Sands lawyers claim the lawsuit belongs to an appeal to the High Court.

“This case will proceed to a trial where the truth about the control of this entity, which is its true home, will be revealed,” Biss said.

Sheldon Adelson, co-defendant, owner and former CEO of Las Vegas Sands, testified in Gonzalez’s court for four days, sometimes admonished by the judge for arguing with her.

In a May ruling, the judge ruled that while Sands China is located in different jurisdictions, Adelson and his company’s control over the subsidiary “much beyond the general relationship between the parent and the subsidiary,” adding that “a big and small decision was ultimately made by Adelson and LVS in Las Vegas.”

Earlier this year, Gonzalez ordered sanctions against Sands China for correcting and withholding documents related to the case. One such sanction was to prevent Sands China from calling witnesses to jurisdiction hearings.

Sands is calling on the Supreme Court to invalidate a judge’s ruling on jurisdiction as well as sanctions. Sands came out with their big guns and Alan Dershowitz, a law professor at Harvard University, argued in front of the justices.

“The case should go against Mr. Adelson and LVS,” he told the High Court, referring to his subsidiary Sands China, “they have a lot of defendants to sue, but this court should rule against the Macau defendant that the case should be dismissed.” 온라인카지노

The Clark County court calendar shows a June 27 hearing date for the trial, but Sands lawyers also insisted on the change of venue in an amended complaint filed last week in the high court by Judge Gonzalez, calling it biased and hostile.

The company’s latest motion argues that her ruling “continues to demonstrate this lawyer’s bias and hostility towards the defendants, and further questions her ability to preside over the case as a fair judicial official.”

Jacobs’ lawyer accused the defendants of having to abide by the same rules, saying, “Their response was simply to flaunt the rules, misrepresent the evidence and hide the evidence. As she has already discovered.”

The court recommended the arguments of both sides but did not say when a ruling could be made.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *