Harvey Weinstein’s legal troubles are spreading to both coasts
Weinstein is appealing a jury verdict in New York and fighting for a new trial in L.A., while also facing a new civil complaint from one of the women who testified against him.
As Harvey Weinstein’s sentencing date approaches and his attorneys argue for a new trial, a civil battle in New York continues, and another in Los Angeles is filed.
One of the four Jane Does who testified against Weinstein during his L.A. trial filed a lawsuit against him on Thursday, alleging rape and false imprisonment, among other things. Jane Doe 1, the woman whose testimony prompted the jury to convict Weinstein, claims Weinstein assaulted her in February 2013 at an L.A. hotel after meeting at a film festival. He allegedly arrived at the hotel claiming to need to speak with her, then bullied his way up to her room, where he groped her breasts and forced her to perform oral sex on him before moving her to the bathroom and raping her. The suit comes just before the 10-year statute of limitations on her claims would expire.
“Harvey has always denied the allegations, and even more, has maintained that they were never in the same place at the times alleged,” Weinstein’s spokesman Juda Engelmayer said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter on Thursday. “Certain witnesses lied about crucial evidence that could have exonerated Mr. Weinstein, and it was deemed unnecessary by the court for the jury to hear or know about these facts. His attorneys submitted a motion detailing those facts and contend that the jury would not have convicted him had they known the specifics and that motion speaks for itself and puts this in proper context.” (More details on that motion are below.)
In New York, a judge denied a motion to dismiss the suit filed by Kaja Sokola, who accuses Weinstein of sexual assault in 2002 when she was a teen model. Disney, Miramax, and Bob Weinstein are named as defendants in the suit, which was filed under the state’s Child Victims Act.
Judge Alexander Tisch determined that Sokola has sufficiently alleged an employment relationship between Disney and Weinstein to pursue a claim for negligent supervision and/or retention, and he is allowing similar claims against Miramax and Bob Weinstein, in relation to his role within the company, to proceed as well. He determined that the allegations against the companies and executives were “sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that these defendants knew or should have known of Weinstein’s propensity to commit sexual assault, abuse and/or harassment.”
“Today’s decision corrected an erroneous federal court interpretation of New York law on negligent supervision that has contributed to the denial of justice to Weinstein survivors and other sexual assault survivors,” Sokola’s attorneys Douglas H. Wigdor and Kevin Mintzer said in a joint statement. We look forward to moving forward with discovery and trial on Ms. Sokola’s claims.”
Weinstein’s attorney Imran H. Ansari said in a statement to THR: “The decision by the Court is not surprising, as other Courts, with other litigants, have previously rendered similar decisions when deciding the viability of the Child Victims Act. However, although the legal arguments to dismiss the claims were denied, the factual basis for dismissal remains strong, as Mr. Weinstein categorically, and emphatically, has denied, and continues to deny, the allegations made against him by Ms. Sokola. Importantly, Mr. Weinstein strongly contends that the timeline of events, corroborated by other evidence, will refute Ms. Sokola’s allegations of sexual abuse as a minor.”
In the criminal cases, Weinstein filed a motion for a new trial on Jan. 31 after an L.A. jury found him guilty of three counts involving Jane Doe 1 (forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, and penetration by foreign object) in December. His attorneys claim that evidence that would have undermined Jane Doe 1’s testimony was excluded from the trial, and that this prejudiced Weinstein. They also claim that if the evidence had been presented to the jurors after the trial, they would not have voted to convict on those counts. (While Weinstein was acquitted of sexual battery by restraint against Jane Doe 3, the jury couldn’t agree on the charges against Jane Does 2 and 4.)
Weinstein is also appealing a New York jury’s verdict in 2020, which found him guilty of criminal sexual assault in the first degree and rape in the third degree and sentenced him to 23 years in prison. The verdict has already been upheld, but in August he was given the opportunity to file another appeal with the state’s highest court.
The next hearing in the criminal case in Los Angeles is scheduled for February 23.