What specific sexual misconduct and assault claims did Kathryn Mayorga describe about the 2009 Las Vegas encounter with Cristiano Ronaldo?
Executive summary
Kathryn Mayorga has accused Cristiano Ronaldo of raping her in a Las Vegas hotel suite in June 2009, saying the encounter was non‑consensual and that she repeatedly told him "no"; she reported the alleged assault to Las Vegas police the next day and later accepted a $375,000 settlement and confidentiality agreement that she now says was coerced [1] [2] [3]. Ronaldo has consistently denied the allegations, saying the encounter was consensual, and U.S. courts ultimately dismissed Mayorga’s civil case because her attorney relied on purloined documents and engaged in misconduct [4] [5].
1. How Mayorga describes the encounter: nightclub meeting, suite invitation, bedroom assault
Mayorga’s accounts begin with meeting Ronaldo at the Rain nightclub inside the Palms on June 12–13, 2009 and accepting an invitation to go with him and others to his Penthouse/Palms suite, where she alleges the sexual violence occurred in a bedroom [6] [2] [7]. Her lawsuit and media interviews state that, once in the suite, Ronaldo sexually assaulted her—allegations characterized in reporting as rape—and that she repeatedly told him "no" while he continued, a central factual claim she advanced in the 2018 civil filing [1] [7].
2. Immediate reporting and law‑enforcement contact
Mayorga made a report to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department the day after the encounter, on June 13, 2009, a report that appears in a police "computer-aided dispatch" log and for which media outlets have cited a recording and CAD entry; however, she did not initially provide the attacker’s name or the exact location in a way that allowed investigators to pursue a full criminal case at that time, according to police and prosecutors [6] [2] [8].
3. The 2010 settlement and Mayorga’s claim it was coerced
In 2010 Mayorga accepted a payment—reported widely as $375,000—in exchange for a nondisclosure agreement and a release that barred public discussion of the incident, which she later sought to void, saying she had been emotionally fragile, pressured, and unable to participate meaningfully in mediation at the time [1] [3] [9]. Her civil litigation sought to unwind that settlement and to obtain damages, arguing the deal was procured by exploiting her vulnerability [1] [9].
4. Civil litigation, evidentiary controversy and dismissal
When Mayorga sued in 2018, she renewed the narrative of non‑consensual sex and alleged coercion into the NDA, prompting Las Vegas police to reopen the 2009 investigation; yet the federal civil case was later dismissed with prejudice after Judge Jennifer Dorsey found Mayorga’s attorney had used hacked or “purloined” documents and acted in bad faith, prejudicing Ronaldo’s ability to defend himself—an evidentiary and procedural finding that ended the federal suit regardless of the underlying factual claims [7] [4] [5].
5. Criminal prosecution effort and prosecutorial decision
Although the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police revisited the matter in 2018, the Clark County District Attorney’s Office ultimately declined to prosecute, stating in 2019 that the allegations could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt—citing limitations created by the passage of time and gaps in the original police report, including lack of identifying details supplied at the outset [8] [10].
6. Competing narratives and the public record
Ronaldo’s team has consistently asserted the encounter was consensual and has disputed Mayorga’s claims, and the public record is shaped not only by the parties’ opposing accounts but by legal rulings over evidence and attorney conduct that curtailed the civil process; reporting and court documents show the factual core of Mayorga’s allegation—rape in a Las Vegas hotel suite following a nightclub meeting, and acceptance of a hush payment she now says was coerced—is well documented in filings and media accounts, while courts have limited what can be litigated and publicized because of procedural problems related to how evidence was obtained and used [1] [3] [4].