By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 14 – In the wave of litigation against Harvey Weinstein, the sex Trafficking Victims Protection Act charge again arose on November 6, 2019 this time before District Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
But now on July 14, hours before the arraignment of Ghislaine Maxwell elsewhere in the SDNY courthouse, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein rejected a proposed settlement in the Geiss case against Weinstein. Inner City Press live tweeted it:
Judge Hellerstein asks, Why are there people in this who only met Harvey Weinstein?
Lawyer for Louisette Geiss, et al.: All of these women were in the zone of danger.
Judge Hellerstein: I cannot delegate these determinations to a non Article III person. The Supreme Court would not permit that.
Geiss lawyer: Do you have any other questions?
Judge Hellerstein: This is not a case suitable for a class. Some may have done it willingly, others not. They cannot be treated the same. This is not a class action. You want to test me? Make a motion.
Geiss lawyer: We will likely withdraw the motion.
Judge Hellerstein: I will not give preliminary approval to the settlement. If want to have a class, bring a motion. Or better, litigate the claims of each of your clients. Get a judgment. You can pursue many remedies. Won't waste your time with phony settlements
Judge Hellerstein: Anyone else wants to speak? No need for objections to settlement I am not approving. Let's close the meeting. I'll make a summary order. Goodbye to all.
That case is Louisette Geiss, et al. v. The Weinstein Company Holdings, LCC, et al., 17-cv-9554 (Hellerstein).
Back in November 2019, Harvey Weinstein's lawyer Elior D. Shiloh told Judge Abrams that he disagrees with the ruling on the issue by recently memorialized Judge Robert W. Sweet, and that SDNY Judges Alvin K. Hellerstein and Paul A. Engelmayer merely "rubber-stamped" Judge Sweet's logic.
Judge Abrams admonished Harvey Weinstein's lawyer to "be respectful of my colleagues," saying they were rubber-stamping.
Judge Abrams admonished Harvey Weinstein's lawyer to "be respectful of my colleagues," saying they were rubber-stamping.
The lawyer then went out of his way to praise Judge Sweet's decision but to say that the complaint he ruled on was much different than the one here, in Wedil David v. The Weinstein Company LLC et al, 18-cv-5414 (Abrams).
Judge Abrams back on September 16 stayed discovery as to Robert Weinstein pending ruling on the motion to dismiss argued on November 6, and referred the portions of the case against Harvey Weinstein and the Weinstein Companies to SDNY Magistrate Judge Lehrburger.
It was Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox who convened a telephone conference on the case on October 22, and has asked for a proposed scheduling order by November 12. Inner City Press will stay covering these cases.
Back on June 4, as reported then by Inner City Press, Shiloh argued to JudgeHellerstein why he should allow an interlocutory appeal of his April order which among other things denied Harvey Weinstein's motion to dismiss the Trafficking Victims Protection Act claims against him by Louisette Geiss and others.
Judge Hellerstein's order said "I join Judges Engelmayer and Sweet in holding that the TVPA extends to enticement of victims by means of fraudulent promises of career advancement, for the purposes of engaging them is consensual or, as alleged here, non-consensual sexual activity. Accordingly, H. Weinstein's motion to dismiss the TVPA claim against him is denied."
Along with asking about the status of the bankruptcy case settlement talks in which Shiloh said Harvey Weinstein is participating, Judge Hellerstein asked Shiloh why he hasn't similarly asked Judge Engelmayer for certification to appeal his order.
As Shiloh's response in the courtroom wasn't entirely clear, Inner City Press asked him afterward by the elevators why the request hadn't been made to Judge Engelmayer as well. Shiloh replied that Engelmayer essentially judge adopted the logic of Judge Sweet, since deceased (RIP), so appeal of Judge Hellerstein's ruling based on a transcript seemed more productive. The argument will or would involve the legislative history of the TVPA. We'll have more on this. See Patreon, here.
The case is Louisette Geiss, et al. v. The Weinstein Company Holdings, LCC, et al., 17-cv-9554 (AKH) and, just to keep the interest perked, footnote 6 of Judge Hellerstein's ruling says that "one employee, Sandeep Rehal, allegedly received a bonus for procuring erectile dysfunction drugs for Harvey. FAC Para 626. Rehal is not named as a defendant, however."
The case previously before Judge Sweet, Kadian Noble v. Harvey Weinstein, 17-cv-9260, is now before Judge Alison J. Nathan. See @InnerCityPress and now @SDNYLIVE.
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
