Judge Greenlights Ashley Judd's Suit Against Weinstein But Dismisses Sexual Harassment Claim
A federal judge in Los Angeles denied Harvey Weinstein's motion to toss a defamation lawsuit filed by actress Ashley Judd. Weinstein had argued that the claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitations.
September 20, 2018 at 10:53 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
|
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.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDapper Labs $4M Settlement, $1.3M in Attorney Fees Reveal NFT Settlement Trend
4 minute readSyracuse Courtroom Dedicated to Trailblazing City Court Judge Langston McKinney
Ties Go in Favor of Voters: NY Court of Appeals Upholds 2021 Canvassing Law
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250