By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 24 – In the wave of litigation against Harvey Weinstein, the sex Trafficking Victims Protection Act charge again arose on November 6, 2019 before District Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
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, below.
Now on February 23, 2021, in the case of NYS trial witness Miriam Haley v. Harvey Weinstein, there was a proceeding before SDNY Judge John P. Cronan. Inner City Press live tweeted it here:
(and, podcast here)
Miriam Haley's lawyer John R. Cuti: After the verdict against Weinstein, there aren't many factual disputes. So we've raised damages early here?
Judge Cronan: This issue was teed up for Judge Oetken in Garcia, but it was resolved. Are there any other District court cases?
A: Not since the [NYS] Appellate Division decision. Now Weinstein's lawyer Imran Ansari: We are appealing, we are perfecting it. We are waiting on a decision if we can enlarge the record. Judge Cronan: Can you preview what you'll be raising on appeal?
Weinstein's lawyer: Jury selection, publication of a book by a juror - so, unfit juror - the manner some evidence was allowed, we objected. In essence, we find appealable issues from jury selection to verdict.
Weinstein's lawyer, without irony: My client Harvey Weinstein doesn't intend to just roll over and accept liability here.
We'll see. This case is Haley v. Weinstein, 20-cv09109 (Cronan)
Back on August 28, the parties reconvened with class certification off the table and Weinstein's lawyer complaining about his incarceration and looming extradition to Los Angeles. Inner City Press again live tweeted it:
For Weinstein, it's Imran Ansari. He says he'll be seeking a protective order, citing Los Angeles criminal action.
Judge Hellerstein sets next date for December 11 at 10 am, says, ifhere is going to be a motion to stay discovery..... Asks about protective order.
A: There may be material that is of a financial nature.
Judge Hellerstein: Make sure you follow my rules.
A: We do nothing else, your Honor.
Judge Hellerstein: When the motion comes in, we may have oral argument. He asks, Will the motion be opposed?
A: With respect to the Miramax plaintiffs, all of these claims have been dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.
Judge Hellerstein: When did I do that? A: More than a year ago. April 19, 2019.
Judge Hellerstein: How are you going to response to the delay?
A: We were having discussions... Now we are ready to go back to litigation.
Judge Hellerstein: OK, I'll look at the motion. Who will be handling the appeal?
A: Me, Ms. Fegan. & Mr. Clune for Ms. Brock
Judge Hellerstein: Do you think there is any conflict?
Ms. Fegan: No. We represent individual plaintiffs only.
Judge Hellerstein: The part of the order that dismisses the case against officers and directors, is that going to be one of the points of the appeal?
Judge Hellerstein: I'm very concerned in December there will be another motion to enlarge. I will not be inclined to grant such a motion.
Weinstein lawyer: My client is obviously incarcerated right now, and facing extradition to Los Angeles, slowed by COVID.
Weinstein's lawyer: I gather there may be little sympathy for my client. But there are difficulties for him, with regard to Dec14.
JudgeHellerstein: Have him answer while he's here. Don't leave things to the last minute. We are adjourned.
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.
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.
