CAA, Disney Can’t Dismiss Case Over Harvey Weinstein

CAA has misplaced its bid to dismiss a lawsuit from Julia Ormond faulting the company for failing to warn her about Harvey’s Weinstein’s historical past of sexual misconduct earlier than she took a gathering with the previous film mogul that led to her assault.

Ormond final yr filed a wide-reaching lawsuit accusing her ex-agency, Miramax and Disney of turning a blind eye to Weinstein’s crimes. After she was assaulted, she mentioned her brokers on the time, who have been allegedly instructed by one other shopper that Weinstein proposed intercourse in trade for profession alternatives, discouraged her from reporting the incident to regulation enforcement.

In an order rejecting dismissal of the case, New York decide Suzanne Adams discovered on Monday that the allegations “recommend that CAA knew or had cause to know of a possible assault by Weinstein” that would represent a breach of company’s fiduciary duties to Ormond, who rose to prominence within the 90s after starring in Legends of the Fall, First Knight and Sabrina.

Claims have been additionally allowed to proceed in opposition to Disney, Miramax and Weinstein.

Ormond’s lawsuit pointed to her ex-agents Bryan Lourd and Kevin Huvane encouraging her to take a gathering with Weinstein that led to her being assaulted and to not report the incident to regulation enforcement. She additionally blamed Disney executives Jeffrey Katzenberg and Michael Eisner for negligently shifting accountability on supervising Weinstein, with the purpose of overlooking the misconduct to proceed profiting off of the corporate’s coping with Miramax. Not one of the people have been named within the lawsuit as defendants.

With respect to CAA’s prior data of Weinstein’s propensity for sexual assault, the courtroom discovered that the grievance sufficiently alleged that the company “failed to guard” Ormond. It pointed to representatives for CAA selecting to not warn her of his status whereas they have been negotiating her first-look take care of Miramax.

In 1995, the company helped organize a gathering between Ormond and Weinstein to debate funding for a title she was growing. He later lured her again to his residence, the place he compelled her to carry out oral intercourse on him, in response to the grievance.

After Ormond recounted the assault to Lourd and Huvane, they allegedly instructed her “she is probably not believed and that she “risked additional angering Weinstein” if she went to the police as a result of it was his “notion of the occasion — not Ormond’s precise lack of consent — that legally mattered,” the lawsuit mentioned.

Transferring for dismissal of the case, Disney mentioned that it isn’t chargeable for Weinstein’s crimes as a result of it wasn’t his employer. Adams rejected the argument since Weinstein reported on to Eisner, who delegated oversight of the Miramax founder to different Disney executives, together with Katzenberg.

Disney bought Miramax in 1993, previous to Weinstein’s assault of Ormond.

The lawsuit introduced claims for sexual battery in opposition to Weinstein and negligent supervision in opposition to Miramax and Disney. She additionally accused CAA of negligence and breach of fiduciary obligation. The grievance was filed underneath New York’s Grownup Survivors Act, which briefly lifted time constraints on claims involving intercourse offenses for a one yr interval.