O.J. Simpson sues Las Vegas casino, contends he was defamed | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

O.J. Simpson sues Las Vegas casino, contends he was defamed

Associated Press
1920644_web1_1920644-5a56e2f286df428088b53e3259491c7d
Jason Bean/The Reno Gazette-Journal via AP, Pool, File
In this 2017, former NFL football star O.J. Simpson enters his parole hearing at the Lovelock Correctional Center in Lovelock, Nev.

LAS VEGAS — O.J. Simpson is suing a Las Vegas hotel-casino that banned him in November 2017, alleging that unnamed employees defamed him by telling a celebrity news site he had been drunk, disruptive and unruly.

Simpson, on parole in Nevada for a 2008 conviction for armed robbery and assault with a weapon, filed the lawsuit Thursday against Nevada Property 1 LLC, corporate owner of the Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas.

The complaint acknowledges that Simpson, after several hours with two friends at a steakhouse and a lounge in November 2017, received a notice from a security guard as they left. It prohibited him from returning to the Las Vegas Strip property. He says he was never given a reason.

Cosmopolitan spokeswoman Rachel Henry declined comment.

Simpson denied in the lawsuit that he was “belligerent,” broke glass or damaged property.

Simpson attorney Malcolm LaVergne said his client’s reputation was damaged by “hotel staff” accounts cited in a TMZ report that Simpson “was drunk and became disruptive” at the resort’s Clique bar.

TMZ is not a defendant in the lawsuit.

Simpson had been released on parole less than six weeks before the incident, and LaVergne said Friday his client was stung by criticism on he received on social media. The attorney said Simpson did not have a Twitter account in 2017.

“Now we’ve got Twitter. We’ve got a lawsuit. We’ll see how things play out,” LaVergne said.

Simpson opened a Twitter account last June with an initial video post saying, “I got a little gettin’ even to do.” Most posts since have been about football.

The defamation complaint said a parole officer arrived unannounced at Simpson’s Las Vegas home following news reports of the Cosmopolitan incident and administered drug and alcohol tests.

Parole officials found that Simpson had not violated probation “and ultimately determined that the Cosmopolitan’s assertions against Simpson were false,” the complaint said.

Nevada Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Kim Yoko Smith did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the parole finding.

Simpson has been living in a gated golf course community after being freed from prison. He was convicted in October 2008 of leading five men, including two with guns, in an ill-fated bid to retrieve personal items and memorabilia from two collectibles dealers and a go-between at a Las Vegas casino-hotel.

Simpson claims in the complaint he is a “model” parolee and points to “an extremely warm and positive reception by many” who pose with him for photos.

With good behavior credits, his parole could end before 2022.

The lawsuit characterizes Simpson as “a well-known public figure,” college football Heisman Trophy winner and Pro Football Hall of Famer who “has experienced various legal problems.”

Simpson was acquitted in Los Angeles in the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. He was found liable for the killings in 1997 and ordered by a California civil court jury to pay $33.5 million to victims’ families.

The lawsuit was first reported by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.