The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A US couple’s much-publicised $30m sexual assault lawsuit against Sandals Royal Bahamian Resort and its affiliates has been thrown out in its entirety by a New York judge.

District judge Analisa Torres, sitting in the southern New York federal court, dismissed the lawsuit filed by John Pascarella and Ashley Reid Pascarella on the basis that it lacked “personal jurisdiction” over the Bahamian resort and its Sandals Resorts International parent.

The duo, whose allegations received widespread TV and print coverage on both the US and UK media when they were first aired in 2019, had initiated legal action after claiming Mrs Pascarella was sexually assaulted by Moral Adderley, the butler assigned to them during their stay at Sandals Royal Bahamian.

“Ashley and Jeffrey Pascarella claim that Ashley was assaulted by an employee of Sandals Royal Bahamian Spa Resort & Offshore Island on the night before their destination wedding at that resort’s property,” Judge Torres wrote in surmising their action.

“They bring claims against Sandals Royal Bahamian, its parent company, Sandals Resort International, and the tour company that helped book their wedding, Travel Impressions, for negligence, loss of consortium on behalf of Jeffrey, and breach of contract.”

Delving deeper into the allegations, the verdict recalled: “In April 2016, plaintiffs planned a destination wedding at the resort property operated by Sandals Royal Bahamian in The Bahamas. Sandals Royal Bahamian is a subsidiary of Sandals Resorts International, which ‘sets policy for, directs and maintains throughout all its affiliate resorts . . . brand compliance and uniformity of accommodations, services, food, beverage, housekeeping, water sports, and all other environments, decor, and activities’.

“The wedding was booked through Travel Impressions. On the basis of the deal negotiated with Travel Impressions, plaintiffs invited some 70 guests to their destination wedding at Sandals Royal Bahamian’s property. During plaintiffs’ stay at Sandals Royal Bahamian’s property, they were assigned a butler, who was an employee of Sandals Royal Bahamian.

“After a cocktail party held on the night before plaintiffs’ wedding, that employee ‘entered the bedroom of’ Ms Pascarella, and ‘undertook surreptitiously to molest, fondle, grope and take sexual liberties of’ her. She screamed for help, and resort security apprehended the butler. He was later charged with indecent assault in a Bahamian court.”

The butler, Moral Adderley, has vigorously denied that such an attack occurred even though he pled guilty to indecent assault in a Magistrate’s Court. He said he changed his initial ‘not guilty’ plea in an effort to escape serving prison time and thus missing his father’s funeral.

Mr Adderley declined to comment on the lawsuit’s dismissal when contacted by The Tribune yesterday. The couple’s allegations were unable to survive the attack mounted by Sandals’ US attorneys, who raised multiple legal technicalities and obstacles to it proceeding in the New York courts.

Tribune Business previously reported how the all-inclusive resort chain’s legal advisers had urged that the case be dismissed on the basis that the couple had signed a document agreeing that all legal disputes be resolved in The Bahamas.

This stipulated that “all claims” against Sandals “shall be governed solely by the laws of Bahamas as the exclusive choice of law, and further that the courts of Bahamas shall be the exclusive venue/forum for any proceedings, claims or litigation whatsoever”.

In addition, Sandals’ attorneys argued that The Bahamas was the most appropriate judicial forum to hear the claim as all events, evidence and witnesses were in this nation - and there is absolutely no connection to New York.

Tara Nicola, of the Fitzpatrick, Hunt, Pagano, Aubert law firm, wrote: “The Bahamas is an adequate and available forum given that Sandals Resorts International consents to jurisdiction of the Bahamian courts.

“In addition, Bahamian courts recognise negligence claims and permit recovery for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. Bahamian courts also provide for pre-trial discovery.”

Ms Nicola added that The Bahamas had a strong reason to try the case because the events complained of allegedly occurred in this nation, adding: “The public and private interest factors support dismissal in favour of The Bahamas.

“The Bahamas has a strong interest in resolving this dispute locally because the events and allegations that form the basis of the claim are local to the Bahamas. Indeed, plaintiffs contend that a Bahamian resident engaged in inappropriate, unwanted sexual conduct in the Bahamas at a Bahamian resort involving the Bahamian authorities.”