Soleil Management Lawsuit: Sussman Ruling and RICO Dismissal

The Soleil Management lawsuit most people are searching for is the pair of federal cases in Nevada between the Las Vegas timeshare management company and California attorney Mitchell Reed Sussman. Sussman won the central ruling: in February 2020, U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey granted him summary judgment, declaring that his timeshare exit website did not amount to false advertising under the Lanham Act and that his representation of clients did not violate the federal RICO statute.¹ Soleil’s own RICO countersuit against Sussman was voluntarily dismissed in August 2023 without a decision on the merits.²

Who Soleil Management Is

Soleil Management, LLC was established in January 2001 and manages vacation ownership resorts in Nevada, Hawaii, and Florida. Its Las Vegas properties include Tahiti Village, Club de Soléil, and Tahiti Resort.³ The company was formerly associated with Consolidated Resorts, a developer that filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2009; Soleil was not part of that filing and continued managing the resorts.⁴

How the Dispute Started

The fight began with a cease-and-desist letter in May 2018. Counsel for Soleil Management, Club de Soleil Vacation Club, and Tahiti Village Vacation Club wrote to Sussman, a Beverly Hills attorney whose practice helps timeshare owners exit their contracts. The letter accused him of Lanham Act false advertising through his website promise to “Cancel Your Timeshare Contract and End Your Timeshare Obligations Forever,” and it alleged that his client representation amounted to violations of federal and Nevada RICO statutes and the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Soleil demanded compliance within 15 days or it would sue.⁵

Sussman filed first. On May 31, 2018, he brought a declaratory judgment action in the Central District of California, asking a court to rule that he was not liable under any of the statutes Soleil had cited.⁶ Soleil got the case transferred to the District of Nevada, where it was assigned to Judge Dorsey as Case No. 2:18-cv-02218. Sussman also asked the court to declare that Soleil had violated California’s Timeshare Act.⁷

The Federal Court Ruling in Sussman’s Favor

On February 21, 2020, Judge Dorsey denied Soleil’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Sussman’s motion for summary judgment, describing what she called a “failure of proof” on essential elements of the claims Soleil had threatened.¹ Three findings drove the decision:

The language on Sussman’s website was either non-actionable puffery or literally true given available contract remedies.
Soleil had not produced evidence that the letters Sussman sent clients were false or misleading.
Soleil could not establish the chain of causation needed for a Lanham Act violation.⁵

The court declared that Sussman’s website was not false advertising under the Lanham Act and that his representation of clients seeking timeshare exits did not violate federal RICO. The California Timeshare Act claim was dismissed rather than decided on the merits.⁷

Soleil’s RICO Countersuit and Its Dismissal

Before the declaratory case was fully resolved, Soleil filed its own action. Soleil Management, Tahiti Vacation Club, Tahiti Village Vacation Club, and Club De Soleil Vacation Club sued Sussman under Nevada and federal RICO in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County (Case No. A-19-806212-C). Sussman removed the case to federal court in February 2020, where it was docketed as Case No. 2:20-cv-00312 and again drew Judge Dorsey.²

The procedural history was uneven. On March 5, 2020, Judge Dorsey dismissed Soleil’s complaint but denied Sussman’s request for fees and costs. Soleil moved for reconsideration, and on March 25, 2021, the court granted that motion and vacated the dismissal, letting the case proceed. Two years of litigation followed. Then on August 16, 2023, Soleil filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, ending the case without any ruling on whether Sussman’s practice violated RICO.²

Where This Fits in the Timeshare Exit Fights

Soleil’s approach mirrors a wider strategy in which timeshare developers use RICO and tortious interference claims against exit attorneys and cancellation firms. Sussman has been sued elsewhere on similar theories; in a Middle District of Florida case brought by Westgate Resorts, a court described some of his client communications as “objectively deceptive.”⁸ Other developers have fared no better than Soleil. Club Exploria’s 2018 RICO and tortious interference suit against the Aaronson Law Firm was dismissed by the Middle District of Florida, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, and Club Exploria agreed to pay the firm $175,000 in attorney fees.⁹

A Separate Massachusetts Case

Soleil also appeared as a defendant in an unrelated 2022 individual dispute filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Sean Murphy, a Massachusetts resident representing himself, sued Kahana Villa Vacation Club and Soleil Management over a 2008 timeshare agreement at the Kahana Villa Resort in Lahaina, Hawaii. He alleged breach of contract, Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act violations, and civil rights violations, and said he had paid about $7,000 in arrears based on a promise that unused weeks would be returned. On April 25, 2023, Judge Indira Talwani set aside a default entry and dismissed the case, finding that the defendants had not been properly served and that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because the contract was signed in Hawaii and the defendants had no continuous or systematic contacts with Massachusetts.¹⁰ The case did not reach the merits of Murphy’s contract claims.

Consumer Complaints Against Soleil

Away from formal court dockets, Soleil Management draws steady complaints from timeshare owners trying to exit. On the Better Business Bureau, where the company is not accredited, it holds an average rating of 1.06 out of 5 stars from 18 reviews as of mid-2026. Recurring themes include inability to cancel contracts despite medical or financial hardship, disputes over maintenance fees, allegations of deceptive initial sales practices, and unresponsive customer service.¹¹

Soleil’s standard response is that the resorts it manages are not-for-profit organizations that do not run deed-back programs and are not licensed to resell timeshares. On delinquent accounts, the company has stated that “foreclosures occur after non-payment and there is no timeframe for when the property is foreclosed on.”¹¹ Nevada law gives buyers a five-day cooling-off period after signing, with refunds due within 20 days. After that window closes, owners are generally bound by the contract.¹²

1
Leagle. Sussman v. Soleil Management, LLC
2
CourtListener. Soleil Management, LLC v. Sussman
3
Soleil Management. Management Services
4
Las Vegas Sun. Vegas Timeshare Company to Close Sales Operations
5
CaseMine. Sussman v. Soleil Management, LLC
6
CourtListener. Mitchell Reed Sussman v. Soleil Management, LLC
7
Timeshare Law Library. Mitchell Sussman, Esq. v Soleil
8
CaseMine. Westgate Resorts, Ltd. v. Sussman
9
Timeshare Law Library. Club Exploria LLC Agreed to Pay $175,000 in Attorney Fees
10
GovInfo. Murphy v. Kahana Villa Vacation Club and Soleil Management, LLC
11
Better Business Bureau. Soleil Management LLC Customer Reviews
12
Nolo. Nevada Timeshare Foreclosure, Right to Cancel, and Laws