An attorney for Harvey Weinstein on Wednesday asked a federal judge in Manhattan to dismiss sex-trafficking claims against his client, arguing that the allegations by actress Wedil David could not stand in light of a crucial ruling by the late Judge Robert W. Sweet.

Weinstein's lawyers, in a series of civil lawsuits, have criticized Sweet's landmark ruling last year, which allowed another actress to sue Weinstein under a federal sex-trafficking statute, after she alleged that Weinstein had sexually assaulted her in a hotel where the two had met under the guise of discussing a potential film opportunity.

Weinstein, who is facing an upcoming criminal trial in state court, has denied all allegations of forced sex.

According to Sweet, the interaction qualified as a "commercial sex act" under federal law because Weinstein, then considered one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, had offered her "something of value" in exchange for the meeting.

Elior Shiloh, who represents Weinstein, has warned in court filings that the judge failed to consider the legislative intent behind the statute, leading to a "domino effect" that caused its "flawed reasoning" to be adopted in two other cases.

"If this court allows [David] to move forward with her sex trafficking claim, the domino effect will continue and this court will be faced with a tidal wave of cases involving trafficking claims arising from any job interview or meeting in which there is a disparate level of power or fame," he wrote.

On Monday, Shiloh, a partner with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, reiterated his critique of Sweet's ruling, but also seemed to concede that it was "well reasoned" under the facts of that case.

He told U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams of the Southern District of New York that David's lawsuit simply attempted to piggy-back on the details alleged in Kadian Noble's complaint and that it lacked many of the key elements that allowed Sweet to reach his conclusion in the other case. According to Shiloh, David's suit failed to allege any repeated misrepresentations, and did not even allege when exactly the encounters with Weinstein took place.

"It's apples and oranges," he said. "It's just not the same case."

"If you apply Judge Sweet's ruling, the complaint should be dismissed," Shiloh said.

Kevin Mintzer, an attorney for David, countered Wednesday that all of the elements in the Noble case were present in his client's lawsuit as well. As outlined in court filings, Mintzer said, Weinstein had first assaulted David in 2015 after telling her he wanted to discuss a role in the Netflix series "Marco Polo" and then again in 2016 after he had given her the "impression" that she had gotten the job.

The role never materialized, but the assaults, he said, did, thanks to Weinstein's reputation at the time and his perceived ability to make careers.

"This case involves someone who is at the pinnacle of, was at the pinnacle of, his profession," Mintzer said.

The case, filed in 2015, also accused Weinstein's brother Bob and the former directors of their now-shuttered film studio of enabling Weinstein's conduct, even though they knew he was a danger to women.

Earlier this year, Abrams tossed the claims against The Weinstein Co.'s former directors, finding that they did not owe David a duty of care. An attorney for Bob Weinstein on Wednesday argued that negligence claims against his client should be dismissed on the same grounds.

The hearing ended without a ruling on either motion.

Read More: