Cipriani v. Resorts World Las Vegas, LLC

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT J. CIPRIANI, No. 24-7106 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-01626-MMD-MDC v. MEMORANDUM* RESORTS WORLD LAS VEGAS, LLC; RESORTS WORLD LAS VEGAS HOTELS, LLC; SCOTT SIBELLA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 6, 2025 Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: BENNETT, SANCHEZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Cipriani brought claims against Resorts World

Las Vegas, LLC and Resorts World Las Vegas Hotels, LLC (collectively, “Resorts

World”) and Scott Sibella, former Resorts World president, for encouraging or

allowing another casino guest, Robert Alexander, to harass him. Cipriani alleged

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. negligence, innkeeper liability, negligent supervision, intentional infliction of

emotional distress (“IIED”), civil conspiracy, and concert of action against both

Resorts World and Sibella. The district court applied the doctrine of judicial

estoppel to dismiss his negligence, innkeeper liability, and negligent supervision

claims against Resorts World. The district court dismissed Cipriani’s remaining

claims on other grounds.

We review the order granting summary judgment de novo and view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Milton H. Greene

Archives, Inc. v. Marilyn Monroe LLC, 692 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 2012). We

review the application of judicial estoppel for abuse of discretion. Id. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the dismissal of the negligence,

innkeeper liability, and negligent supervision claims against Resorts World and

affirm the dismissal of Cipriani’s other claims.

1. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in applying

judicial estoppel to Cipriani’s negligence, innkeeper liability, and negligent

supervision claims against Resorts World. The court rested its determination on a

supposed inconsistency between Cipriani’s assertion in a state court action that

Resorts World ejected Alexander presumably to ensure Cipriani’s safety, and his

allegation in this federal action that Resorts World disregarded his safety by

encouraging or allowing Alexander to harass him. Cipriani’s allegation that

2 24-7106 Resorts World allowed or encouraged Alexander to harass him for several weeks

before ejecting him is not “clearly inconsistent” with his earlier assertion that

Alexander was eventually ejected from the casino—both can be true. See New

Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750 (2001) (Judicial estoppel applies where a

party makes an assertion “clearly inconsistent” with its earlier position).

Furthermore, Resorts World has not shown that Cipriani succeeded in

persuading the state court to accept his earlier position or that he would gain an

unfair advantage if not estopped. Id. at 750–51. In state court, Alexander himself

asserted that he had been ejected by Resorts World before Cipriani acknowledged

that fact in his counterclaim. We reverse the district court’s application of judicial

estoppel and remand for further analysis of Cipriani’s negligence, innkeeper

liability, and negligent supervision claims against Resorts World.

2. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Cipriani’s innkeeper liability

claim against Sibella. Cipriani has failed to show that Sibella is an “innkeeper”

within the meaning of NRS § 651.015. The statute attaches liability to the “owner”

or “keeper” of a hotel. NRS § 651.015. Cipriani cites no relevant Nevada

precedent showing that Sibella qualifies as a “keeper” under the statute or that

innkeeper liability extends to a salaried manager or employee of a casino. We also

affirm the dismissal of Cipriani’s negligence claim against Sibella. Cipriani has

not demonstrated that Sibella was present at Resorts World when the harassment

3 24-7106 occurred or that a special relationship existed to trigger an affirmative duty. See

Sanchez ex rel. Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 221 P.3d 1276, 1280–81 (Nev.

2009).1

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

1 Because Cipriani raises no arguments on appeal challenging the district court’s dismissal of his IIED, conspiracy, and concert of action claims against Resorts World or Sibella, or his negligent supervision claim against Sibella, we affirm dismissal of those claims.

4 24-7106