Geiss v. Weinstein Company Holdings LLC
383 F. Supp. 3d 156
| S.D. Ill. | 2019Background
- Ten plaintiffs (two subclasses: Miramax-era and TWC-era) allege Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted or harassed them from the 1990s through 2011 and that corporate actors knew of, facilitated, or covered up the misconduct.
- Plaintiffs pleaded federal claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA, Counts I–II) and RICO (Counts V–VI), plus multiple New York state tort claims (Counts III–IV, VII–XVIII) against Weinstein, Miramax/Disney-era defendants, TWC and TWC officers/directors.
- Plaintiffs allege specific instances of assault and related post-assault conduct (e.g., hush payments, intimidating messages, cover-ups) and assert that corporate defendants benefited from facilitating or concealing Weinstein’s conduct.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court granted dismissal of all claims except the TVPA claim against Harvey Weinstein (Count I). All other federal and state claims were dismissed (mostly with prejudice); Jane Doe’s state claims were dismissed without prejudice under the Child Victims Act procedural requirements.
- Key legal determinations: TVPA liability can cover enticement by promises of career advancement (denying Weinstein’s motion on Count I); TVPA claims against TWC/individuals (Count II) fail for lack of plausible allegations that they received benefits from participation in the sex‑trafficking venture; RICO claims fail for lack of injury to business or property proximately caused by RICO predicate acts; state tort claims are time‑barred absent tolling, and plaintiffs’ tolling theories (equitable estoppel, duress/continuing wrongs) fail on these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weinstein’s alleged enticement by career promises qualifies as a TVPA "commercial sex act" (Count I) | Enticement by fraudulent promises of career advancement has value and can constitute a commercial sex act under §1591 | Such assaults did not exchange something of value and so fall outside TVPA | Denied Weinstein’s motion: promises of career advancement can be a thing of value; Count I survives against Weinstein |
| Whether TWC and individual defendants are liable under §1591(a)(2) for "participation" and receipt of a benefit (Count II) | Corporate/individual participants facilitated, covered up, and thus benefited (financially/socially) from Weinstein’s continued productivity | Plaintiffs fail to allege a causal link that defendants’ participation in sex‑trafficking produced the alleged financial or other benefits | Dismissed Count II: plaintiffs did not plausibly allege defendants received benefits from participation in the sex‑trafficking venture |
| Whether plaintiffs have RICO standing to recover business/property losses (Counts V–VI) | Blacklisting and economic loss from career harm are RICO injuries | RICO standing requires injury to business or property proximately caused by RICO predicate acts; personal injuries and economic consequences of personal harm are not RICO injuries | Dismissed RICO claims for lack of standing: alleged harms are personal or indirect economic losses not cognizable under §1964(c) |
| Whether New York state tort claims are timely or tolled (Counts III–IV, VII–XVIII) | Tolling doctrines (equitable estoppel, duress/continuing wrongs) apply because defendants concealed knowledge, intimidated victims, and engaged in cover‑ups | Plaintiffs were aware of assaults when they occurred; alleged concealment/intimidation is insufficiently specific, continuous, or within the limitations period to toll limitations | Dismissed state claims as untimely (except Jane Doe’s claims, dismissed without prejudice to conform with CVA filing rules); tolling doctrines do not save the claims on these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal‑sufficiency / plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard requiring plausibility)
- Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (RICO standing requires injury to business or property)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (RICO proximate causation and standing principles)
- Zumpano v. Quinn, 6 N.Y.3d 666 (standard for equitable estoppel / fraudulent concealment under NY law)
- Noble v. Weinstein, 335 F. Supp. 3d 504 (TVPA can cover promises of career advancement as value)