Harvey Weinstein

A federal judge on Tuesday gave the go-ahead for a lawsuit filed by actress Ashley Judd against Harvey Weinstein over alleged career sabotaging to proceed, though granted Weinstein's motion to dismiss sexual harassment claims.

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez of the Central District of California denied Weinstein's request to toss the lawsuit on account of Judd's claims of being barred by applicable statutes of limitations.

The actions detailed in the complaint, which was originally filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in April, took place roughly between 1996 and 1998. Judd, who is represented by counsel at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, accused Weinstein of sabotaging her chance to be cast in Lord of the Rings after she denied his alleged sexual advances. Judd claims that she first heard of the casting issue in late 2017, after such was mentioned in a media interview with the film's director, Peter Jackson.

Under those circumstances, Gutierrez maintained California's “delayed discovery rule” applied. The judge allowed Judd's claims of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and defamation to move forward.

Weinstein's lawyers at Kupferstein Manuel had argued that Judd's defamation claims were filed “20 years too late,” since California law calls for such claims to be filled a year after statements are allegedly made. His lawyers also claimed that the things Judd accused him of saying were “non-actional statements of opinion,” which require a plaintiff to show falsehood that can be proven.

Gutierrez, however, wrote in Wednesday's ruling that such statements “do not enjoy 'blanket protection.'”

“Plaintiff's defamation claim is based on two statements that Defendant allegedly made to Jackson and [his filmmaking partner]: that Plaintiff was 'a nightmare to work with and [they] should avoid [her] at all costs,' and that he had 'bad experiences' with her in the past,” Gutierrez wrote. The judge found that such statements suggested “that Defendant had previous experiences with Plaintiff and that Plaintiff did something during those experiences such that Defendant considered them 'bad' and considered her 'a nightmare to work with.' ”

The court, however, granted Weinstein's motion to dismiss a sexual harassment claim brought under California Civil Code 51.9, which prohibits harassment in a professional, service or business relationship. Judd for her part had claimed the relationship was similar and one in which “one party has significantly more power than the other” and served “as the gatekeeper to the other party's financial success.”

The sexual harassment claim stemmed from an alleged encounter in which Judd claims Weinstein invited her, then in her twenties, to a breakfast meeting in his hotel room to discuss a hotel room. When he arrived, she alleged he appeared in a bathrobe and asked for a massage, which she refused. She claims he then asked her to help him pick out clothes to wear and watch him shower.

Gutierrez found that the relationship was along the lines of “potential employer and prospective employee” rather than any definition covered under 51.9.

“While the law is not settled on this point, the court is skeptical that § 51.9 can ever properly be applied to a relationship between a potential employer and a prospective employee. But the Court does not [need] to decide here whether such relationships are categorically outside the statute's reach because it finds that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to show that her relationship with Defendant was substantially similar” to those outlined in the statute.

However, Gutierrez granted Judd an opportunity to amend her sexual harassment claims, finding “at this stage, the court cannot conclude that amendment would be futile.”

Judd has until October 19 to file an amended complaint, or the claim will be dismissed with prejudice.

Judd's lawyer, Gibson, Dunn's Theodore Boutrous, said in a statement that Judd and her legal team were “pleased that the court gave us an opportunity to amend our complaint and present additional facts related to one of Ms. Judd's claims.”

“We will move forward immediately with discovery, including Mr. Weinstein's deposition, and look forward to proving to a jury at trial that Mr. Weinstein defamed Ms. Judd, interfered with her ability to earn a living, and engaged in unlawful business practices. The law should not tolerate this abuse of power to damage another's career.,“ he added.

Weinstein's lead attorney, Phyllis Kupferstein, couldn't be reached by press time.