Cristiano Ronaldo has lost a bid for dismissal or complete secrecy in a federal lawsuit
Cristiano Ronaldo lost a bid for dismissal or complete secrecy in a lawsuit by a woman who accuses him of raping her more than a decade ago.
Kathryn Mayorga said Ronaldo had sexually assaulted her in 2009 after they met at the Rain Nightclub in the Palms hotel, Las Vegas.
Lawyer Larissa Drohobyczer, representing Ms Mayorga, said she was satisfied with US District Judge Jennifer Dorsey’s ruling on Friday.
Peter Christiansen, representing the Juventus and Portugal player, declined to comment.
Last month, Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson said Ronaldo would not face criminal charges in the matter – with his lawyers saying the pair had consensual sex in June 2009.
Ms Mayorga’s lawsuit seeks monetary damages of at least 200,000 US dollars (£165,000).
It alleges that Ronaldo or people working for him allowed word to become public last year of a hush-money settlement that paid her 375,000 US dollars (£310,000).
The judge rejected Ronaldo’s claim that releasing court records would have ‘weaponised the allegations in this case,’ risk public scandal and harm Ronaldo’s reputation and endorsements.
Kathryn Mayorga, a teacher (pictured), claimed in a lawsuit that Cristiano Ronaldo raped her in a Vegas penthouse in 2009
Lawyer Larissa Drohobyczer, representing Ronaldo’s accuser, Kathryn Mayorga, said she was satisfied with US District Judge Jennifer Dorsey’s ruling in Las Vegas on Friday
‘The cat is already out of the bag about Mayorga’s allegations’ and the settlement, Judge Dorsey wrote.
‘I’m not satisfied that Ronaldo’s interest in holding Mayorga to her agreement is enough to justify sealing the entire record in this case.’
However, the judge called the settlement between Ronaldo and Mayorga in 2010 a confidential contract between private parties.
‘The documents themselves and direct quotes from any of them will remain sealed,’ she said.
Ms Mayorga has given permission through her lawyers to be identified in relation to this case.
Prosecutors had previously said the accuser’s unwillingness to name an attacker stopped a proper forensic investigation.
Ms Mayorga claimed Ronaldo had sexually assaulted her after they met at the Rain Nightclub in the Palms hotel, but last month it emerged that prosecutors will not file charges against the striker, who was pictured with Ms Mayorga on the evening in question.
Ronaldo emphatically denies claims he attacked Kathryn Mayorga at a Las Vegas hotel in 2009
‘The allegations of sexual assault against Cristiano Ronaldo cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,’ they said in a statement. ‘Therefore, no charges will be forthcoming.’
The accuser filed a police report describing the alleged attack, but did not name Ronaldo in the original document, but had since said that the Portugal player invited her up to his hot tub in the penthouse suit at which he was staying.
Ms Mayorga initially sued Ronaldo as she alleged that he’d handed her £300,510 ($375,000) to buy her silence.
However, she pursued a criminal case against the star after saying that she wanted the agreement quashed.
She accused Ronaldo of asking to perform a sex act on him, leading her to refuse and say she wanted to leave the hotel.
Mayorga claimed the attack happened in a suite in this hotel in Las Vegas in the summer of 2009 after Ronaldo burst into a bathroom where she was changing into a swimsuit
Ms Mayorga says he pulled her onto a bed and tried to have sex with her as she fought him off, only for him to rape her she screamed ‘no, no, no’.
The player denies the allegations and responded to the accusation by saying: ‘Rape is an abominable crime that goes against everything that I am and believe in.’
Clark County District Attorney’s Office announced that it would not prosecute the alleged attack, which was reported to police on June 13 in 2009.
They told TMZ that officers who attended the hotel on that day could not ‘conduct any meaningful investigation’ because the woman refused to identify an attacker and would not say where she had been assaulted.
‘Without knowing the identity of the perpetrator or the location of the crime, detectives were unable to search for and impound vital forensic evidence,’ the prosecutors said.
‘In addition, video evidence, showing interactions between the victim and perpetrator before and after the alleged crime, was lost. The criminal investigation was closed.’