Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois; April 17, 2019; Federal District Court
Ten plaintiffs, including Zoe Brock and others, have initiated a class action lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein, his former companies, and certain executives, alleging that Weinstein sexually harassed and assaulted them from 1993 to 2011, with other defendants complicit in covering up his actions. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) includes eighteen counts: four federal claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and RICO, and fourteen state claims addressing negligent supervision, battery, assault, false imprisonment, and emotional distress. The state claims are divided into two categories based on the timing of the alleged conduct, with specific defendants involved for actions occurring before and after September 30, 2005. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court denies Weinstein's motion to dismiss the TVPA claim but dismisses all other claims, noting that TVPA participation claims lack sufficient allegations regarding benefits from sex trafficking, RICO claims do not demonstrate injury to business or property, and many state law claims are barred by statutes of limitations. The factual background highlights Weinstein's rise in the film industry, the sale of Miramax to Disney in 1993, the establishment of TWC, and the subsequent bankruptcy of TWC following public allegations of sexual misconduct against Weinstein, which began to surface prominently in October 2017.
Plaintiffs allege that H. Weinstein engaged in a consistent pattern of predatory and sexually harassing behavior towards women, often arranging meetings under the pretense of career assistance, isolating them, and then assaulting or attempting to assault them. Women who declined his advances faced threats and career harm, including being "blacklisted." The First Amended Complaint (FAC) claims that employees of Miramax, Disney, and TWC were aware of and sometimes complicit in Weinstein's misconduct.
Among the plaintiffs, six women form the "Miramax Subclass," alleging assaults during Weinstein's tenure at Miramax from 1993 to 2005, while three women form the "TWC Subclass," alleging assaults during his time with TWC from 2005 to 2017, with the last incident reported in 2011.
Specific allegations from the Miramax Subclass include:
1. **Nannette Klatt**: In 1993 or 1994, following an audition, H. Weinstein lured Klatt to his office, where he made sexual advances after offering her a role. After she refused, he threatened her career and assaulted her in a stairwell, causing her emotional and physical distress, and resulting in lost opportunities.
2. **Katherine Kendall**: In 1993, Weinstein promised Kendall film roles but later trapped her in his apartment after a movie screening and attempted to assault her. The trauma led her to withdraw from the entertainment industry, and she later reported being targeted by Weinstein's agents in 2017.
3. **Caitlin Dulany**: In 1996, after Dulany rejected Weinstein's advances, he invited her to a film premiere and dinner, subsequently isolating her in his hotel room where he sexually assaulted her. The incident led to significant personal and professional difficulties for Dulany.
Zoe Brock's encounter with H. Weinstein in 1998 involved a group dinner, after which Weinstein, along with Miramax employees Schwartz and Lombardo, isolated her in his hotel room. After an attempted assault, Brock locked herself in the bathroom until Weinstein ceased his threats. Following this, he indicated a desire to assist her career, but Brock claims to have suffered emotional and physical distress without any professional support from him.
In 2000, Melissa Sagemiller, during production of a Miramax film, was instructed by an assistant to meet Weinstein in his hotel room for a "very important" meeting. There, Weinstein demanded a massage and forcibly kissed her after threatening her career. The next day, he transferred her luggage to his private plane without consent, compelling her to travel with him. Sagemiller alleges emotional and physical distress, claiming she was denied acting roles for refusing to comply with Weinstein's advances.
Larissa Gomes, also in 2000, met with Weinstein under the pretense of discussing future film roles. During a subsequent meeting, after expressing interest in her for upcoming films, Weinstein demanded a massage and sexually assaulted her, resulting in physical and emotional damage and career setbacks.
Louisette Geiss encountered Weinstein at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival, where he promised to greenlight her script in exchange for watching him masturbate, leading to an assault. Geiss experienced emotional and physical distress and lost film opportunities due to her refusal to comply with Weinstein's demands. In 2017, she was contacted by Barbara Schneeweiss to deter her from speaking to the press.
Sarah Ann Thomas was assaulted by Weinstein in 2008 while interviewing for a nanny position at his Connecticut home, which caused her emotional distress and led to being blacklisted from acting roles.
Melissa Thompson met with Weinstein in September 2011 to pitch a business idea, where he inappropriately touched her and later raped her in a hotel room. Following this incident, agents from Weinstein's legal team contacted her to gather information about her claims, exacerbating her distress and affecting her business and personal life.
Miramax is a New York corporation based in California, co-chaired by H. Weinstein, who continued working with Weinstein after he founded TWC in 2005. Disney consists of Delaware corporations with a California presence, employing individuals like Lombardo, who allegedly facilitated assaults, while H. Weinstein held multiple contracts with Disney-affiliated entities from 1993 to 2005. TWC, a Delaware LLC founded by Weinstein, had its principal place of business in New York. Allegations against TWC include procuring erectile dysfunction shots for Weinstein and arranging meetings with women, with employees like Gil and Schneeweiss involved.
Three individual defendants—H. Weinstein, R. Weinstein, and Barbara Schneeweiss—worked for both Miramax and TWC. R. Weinstein is accused of being aware of and authorizing settlements for his brother's misconduct, including paying off a victim. Additional claims are made against five former Miramax officers and eleven former TWC directors and officers, all of whom allegedly knew of H. Weinstein's sexual misconduct. Specific allegations include Frank Gil approving a bonus for procuring drugs for Weinstein and destroying evidence, Lombardo arranging for women during Weinstein's European trips, Schneeweiss scheduling appointments with victims, and Schwartz luring victims to hotel meetings. The FAC asserts that many defendants facilitated H. Weinstein's assaults, with detailed facilitation claims against only four individuals.
Plaintiffs initiated their lawsuit on December 6, 2017, which included a motion to dismiss by the defendants, leading to a hearing on September 12, 2018. The court dismissed the original complaint but allowed for repleading and ordered the consolidation of related cases: the Geiss class action (TWC Subclass) and the Dulany class action (Miramax Subclass) under a single amended complaint. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) was filed on October 31, 2018. Irwin Reiter, a Vice President at Miramax and TWC, was dismissed from the case on December 13, 2018. The defendants filed another motion to dismiss, with oral arguments held on March 13, 2019.
In evaluating motions to dismiss, the court accepts the facts in the complaint as true and makes reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs. To withstand dismissal, a complaint must present sufficient factual content to establish a plausible claim for relief, as dictated by relevant case law.
The TWC Subclass asserts claims against H. Weinstein and the TWC Defendants under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), specifically 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1595. The allegations involve direct violations of § 1591(a)(1) by Weinstein and participation violations by the TWC Defendants under § 1591(a)(2). The statute outlines punishable conduct involving the recruitment, enticement, or solicitation of individuals for commercial sex acts, where the perpetrator knows or recklessly disregards the use of coercive means. Definitions within the law clarify "commercial sex act," "participation in a venture," and "venture," emphasizing the serious nature of the alleged misconduct.
Harvey Weinstein is accused by plaintiffs of luring women under the pretense of job opportunities, subsequently assaulting them, which they argue violates 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1). Weinstein contends these acts do not amount to "commercial sex acts" under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) since there was no exchange of value. However, two district courts have rejected this stance. Judge Sweet emphasized that the potential for career advancement offered to actresses holds significant value, thus dismissing Weinstein's argument. Judge Engelmayer similarly denied a motion to dismiss a related claim, agreeing with Judge Sweet's reasoning. Consequently, the court affirms that the TVPA encompasses situations where victims are enticed through fraudulent career promises for sexual acts, leading to the denial of Weinstein's dismissal motion regarding the TVPA claims.
Regarding The Weinstein Company (TWC) and its individual defendants, plaintiffs allege they facilitated and concealed Weinstein's sex-trafficking activities, benefiting from his continued productivity in film production. The defendants counter that the plaintiffs have not adequately alleged the necessary elements of participation, benefits, and venture under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(2). The court acknowledges inadequacies in the participation claims against most TWC defendants but emphasizes the plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate how the defendants benefited from their conduct, which is critical for establishing liability under the TVPA. The law requires a clear causal link between participation in the sex-trafficking venture and the receipt of benefits, distinguishing between those who actively engage in trafficking and those who merely benefit without direct involvement. In a related case, the court found sufficient allegations that the companies' facilitation of Weinstein's misconduct was aimed at keeping him productive, thus allowing them to achieve financial success.
A court allowed a TVPA claim against TWC to proceed, focusing on whether TWC benefited from H. Weinstein's misconduct. Although TWC profited from Weinstein's work, the key issue is whether those benefits were a result of TWC facilitating his sexual abuse. The allegations suggest that TWC's financial gain occurred despite Weinstein's actions, which deterred women from working with the company and diverted resources away from core business activities. The court noted that Weinstein’s employment agreements stipulated that any conviction for sexual misconduct would lead to termination, and there was no evidence that TWC's officers or directors were compensated for participating in his abuses. Consequently, the claims against TWC for sex trafficking were deemed insufficient.
In relation to RICO claims, both subclasses asserted violations against all defendants except Disney and Eisner, but the court identified a critical failure in establishing standing under 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). RICO provides remedies only for injuries to "business or property," not personal injuries. Plaintiffs claimed economic losses due to alleged blacklisting by defendants; however, blacklisting itself does not constitute a RICO violation. As a result, plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue RICO claims for economic injuries not directly linked to RICO violations, leading to the dismissal of these claims.
Regarding the timeliness of state law claims under New York law, the subclasses presented seven claims, including negligent supervision, civil battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The statute of limitations is three years for negligence claims and one year for intentional torts, with the limitation period beginning from the date of injury.
The Geiss action, initiated on December 6, 2017, establishes that, absent tolling, intentional tort claims accruing before December 6, 2016, and negligence claims accruing before December 6, 2014, are barred by the statute of limitations. The latest alleged assault occurred in September 2011, with any post-assault conduct being relevant solely to tolling arguments. Plaintiffs assert that three tolling doctrines—equitable tolling, continuing wrongs, and duress—apply to make their claims timely.
Equitable estoppel, which prevents defendants from using a statute of limitations defense when it would be unfair to do so, requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that specific actions by defendants hindered them from timely filing suit. This doctrine is considered an extraordinary remedy under New York law and is typically invoked only in exceptional circumstances involving fraud, misrepresentation, or deception. Although fear of retaliation can support equitable estoppel in certain contexts, it is generally disfavored in New York unless duress is a component of the claim.
Plaintiffs argue that defendants engaged in affirmative actions to prevent victims from understanding the defendants' knowledge of misconduct and from asserting claims. The first theory pertains to fraud and misrepresentation, but plaintiffs fail to articulate how the concealment of defendants' awareness of Harvey Weinstein's misconduct obstructed their ability to bring claims. They were aware of their injuries and potential liable parties at the time of the assaults. The second theory, related to fear of retaliation, is not strongly pursued by the plaintiffs.
While plaintiffs reference the Zimmerman case, where a school was found to have wrongfully prevented claims against it, they assert that various defendants similarly engaged in conduct aimed at silencing victims, such as enforcing a "Code of Silence," making hush payments, and intimidating journalists. However, the court indicates that neither theory put forth by the plaintiffs is viable based on the facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint (FAC).
The actions of the defendants, while morally reprehensible, did not involve fraud, misrepresentation, or deception that would prevent the plaintiffs from filing suit, as outlined in relevant case law. Specifically, allegations against the Catholic diocese include failing to report priest abuse, reassigning offending priests without disclosure, and making private payments to victims, which constitute passive concealment rather than fraudulent concealment. Additionally, while the plaintiffs cite fear of retaliation as a reason for invoking equitable estoppel, the necessary criteria for such a claim are not met. There must be intimidation by each defendant against each plaintiff within the limitations period, and plaintiffs must file suit within a reasonable time after such conduct ceases. The allegations presented do not demonstrate a consistent pattern of intimidation that would toll the statute of limitations. Furthermore, plaintiffs' claims of duress are only relevant to their negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, as their RICO claims have been dismissed. The concepts of duress and continuing wrongs are linked, requiring that duress be integral to the cause of action.
Duress that forms the basis of a cause of action is classified as a "continuing wrong," requiring both the presence of threats or force by the defendant and the plaintiff's submission to such threats. The tortious conduct must also be uninterrupted. In Canosa, the court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged ongoing intimidating behavior, with the most recent incidents occurring within the limitations period. However, in the current case, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a continuous pattern of threats or force and thus could not support the duress tolling doctrine.
Additionally, the Child Victims Act (CVA), effective February 14, 2019, revives certain civil claims related to sexual offenses committed against minors, allowing actions to be filed within a specified time frame, even if the statute of limitations had expired. Jane Doe, who alleges she was sexually assaulted by H. Weinstein in 2002 at the age of sixteen, falls under this revival provision, distinguishing her from other plaintiffs regarding New York's statutes of limitations.
Compliance with the filing requirements of section 214-g has not been demonstrated, nor has a sufficient basis for jurisdiction been established, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims without prejudice to reasserting them when timely under section 214-g. Harvey Weinstein's motion to dismiss the TWC Subclass's TVPA claim (Count I) is denied, while all other claims against all other defendants (Counts II-XVIII) are dismissed. The Miramax Subclass and all Corporate Defendants have no remaining claims, and all Individual Defendants are cleared of claims except Count I against Harvey Weinstein. Jane Doe's state law claims are dismissed without prejudice, with all other dismissals occurring with prejudice.
The document mandates the termination of several open motions and schedules a status conference for June 4, 2019. The allegations against Jane Doe are stricken, allowing for a demonstration of entitlement to anonymity under the appropriate standard. Eisner is not included in the RICO claims (Counts V and VI). The TVPA's civil action provisions, which previously targeted only the "perpetrator," have remained unchanged in terms of defining a perpetrator as either a direct violator or a participant. The 2008 Amendment introduced a "should have known" standard, but the determination of which version of the TVPA applies is deemed irrelevant in this context. Most Individual Defendants are accused only of facilitating hush payments, which do not meet the necessary criteria for liability under the TVPA. Previous case law reinforces that involvement in hush payments alone does not constitute assisting or supporting sex trafficking. The definitions within the TVPA's civil remedy and criminal statute are treated as identical, although a recent ruling suggested a broader interpretation of "benefits" under section 1595(a).
Female taekwondo athletes have sufficiently alleged that USA Taekwondo and the U.S. Olympic Committee benefited from their relationship with a perpetrator of sexual abuse, who participated in Olympic events. An employee, Sandeep Rehal, reportedly received a bonus for obtaining erectile dysfunction drugs for the perpetrator, Harvey, although Rehal is not a defendant in the case. The Miramax Subclass has brought multiple counts against Miramax and Disney, while the TWC Subclass has similar counts against TWC defendants. Plaintiffs did not challenge the statutory limitations set by defendants or mention N.Y. C.P.L.R. 213-c, which allows for civil claims related to certain sexual offenses to be filed within five years. As all state law claims would be untimely under this limitation unless tolling applies, the court interprets the plaintiffs’ "ratification" claim in Counts XVII and XVIII as an alternative liability theory, not an independent cause of action. The court notes that, while defendants allegedly knew of Weinstein's assaults, there is no evidence that he acted on their behalf or that they authorized his actions; instead, they attempted to conceal his misconduct. Therefore, claims of ratification are dismissed as invalid. The Dulany class action was initiated on June 1, 2018, with the First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed on October 31, 2018, adding claims not in the original filing. The court does not need to address the commencement dates as they do not affect claim timeliness. Additionally, misrepresentations regarding the statute of limitations made in October 2017, after the limitations period for Thompson's claims had expired, are deemed irrelevant for equitable estoppel, as such claims cannot be revived if already time-barred.
