Here Is The Easy Money-Making Trick Everyone Is Talking About! Learn More Here!
A $exu@l assault lawsuit filed by former model Kathryn Mayorga against Cristiano Ronaldo in 2009 has been thrown out by a U.S. District Judge, Jennifer Dorsey.
The ruling was made by the presiding judge because of “bad faith” actions by the attorney of the plaintiff.
In 2018, Mayorga filed a civil case against Ronaldo, accusing the Manchester United striker of r@ping her in a Las Vegas hotel room in 2009.
However, the Portuguese football star has always maintained that the encounter was consensual and it subsequently came to bear that in 2010, the former model received $375,000 from him as part of a confidentiality agreement.
The case was re-opened by the police following the advice of Mayorga and according to reports, she sought more than $25M in damages. The decision to pursue the case afresh came about after accusing Ronaldo and his team of coercing her into signing a settlement and nondisclosure agreement.
Stovall, the attorney of the former model, also reportedly stated that his client lacked the “mental capacity” to sign the 2010 agreement while suggesting that the previous agreement was invalidated by a leaked document published by German outlet Der Spiegel in 2017.
Close to three years after the case was re-opened, a verdict has finally been given. In a 42-page ruling released on Friday, the lawyer of Ms Mayorga was accused by Judge Dorsey for “abuses and flagrant circumvention of the proper litigation process”.
According to the judge, this and other illegalities provided enough grounds for the case to be dismissed.
“I find that the procurement and continued use of these documents was bad faith, and simply disqualifying Stovall will not cure the prejudice to Ronaldo because the misappropriated documents and their confidential contents have been woven into the very fabric of Mayorga’s claims,” Judge Dorsey said. “Harsh sanctions are merited.”
The Associated Press claims that Mayorga and her legal team “could appeal the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco” despite the ruling.
This article was updated 7 months ago