Disney, CAA & Miramax Fail To Get Harvey Weinstein Sexual Assault Suit From Julia Ormond Dismissed

Julia Ormond’s lawsuit against Disney, CAA and Miramax over an alleged 1995 sexual assault by the now incarcerated Harvey Weinstein will be going forward.

“Upon the foregoing documents, and oral argument having been held before the court on May 20, 2024, it is ordered that the motions of defendants The Walt Disney Company, Creative Artists Agency, LLC, and Miramax Film NY, LLC are denied,” New York State Judge Suzanne Adams ruled today.

Read the order rejecting Disney, CAA and Miramax’s move to have Julia Ormand’s suit over an alleged 1995 sexual assault by Harvey Weinstein here.

Not trial date has yet been set for the negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, battery and more action by the Emmy winning Ormond. However, unless the two studios and the mega-agency make a settlement deal ASAP, trial is where this is headed.

While a black-eye to the defendants, such dismissal attempts are pretty much a long shot in most cases to begin with. How this all plays out in the next stages, especially in the context of discovery, will put the true merits of the matter under the microscope.

Having said that, Ormond’s lawyers were almost circumspect in their statement after the order was made public today.

“We are very pleased by the Court’s decision, which is a complete repudiation of CAA, Disney, and Miramax’s attempts to evade accountability for their failure to protect Julia Ormond from Harvey Weinstein,” said Ormond lawyers Meredith A. Firetog and Kevin Mintzer.  “The case will now proceed to discovery, where, thanks to Ms. Ormond’s bravery, we will be able to expose the truth of how these powerful Hollywood companies enabled Harvey Weinstein,” the respective Wigdor LLP and self-titled firm attorneys added.

First filed by the Temple Grandin star in October last year, the suit claims that Weinstein forced himself upon her nearly 30 years ago for oral sex, Ormond also alleges that CAA and Disney — the latter of which owned Weinstein’s Miramax — knew of the Oscar-winning producer’s predatory behavior and did nothing to protect her. In fact, the now Gersh-repped Ormond states that the trio knew of “multiple confidential settlements that Weinstein reached to keep his conduct hidden from public exposure.”

The suit for battery (against Weinstein), negligent supervision and retention (against Miramax and Disney), negligence (CAA), breach of fiduciary duty (against CAA), also claims Weinstein retaliated and Miramax terminated Ormond’s contract ceasing commitments to the projects in development. After CAA bosses Bryan Lourd and Kevin Huvane supposedly told Ormond that the standard settlement figure with after an assault by the now much accused and convicted Weinstein was about $100,000 in 1995, the agency moved her to a less experienced agent, and no longer was working on her behalf, significantly lessening and changing their representation of her.

Coming in under the wire, Ormond was able to pursue the legal action because of New York State’s Adult Survivors Act. Calling Weinstein’s alleged actions s disturbing and deplorable,” Disney’s New York lawyers Cravath, Swaine & Moore entered a motion to dismiss, along with CAA, in late December 2023 based on whether or not “Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim.”

Clearly Judge Adams felt they were more than sufficient.

Disney and Miramax were given no flowers by Judge Adams Monday, but the objections to Ormond’s assertions by CAA in particular were sliced up the Empire State official

With respect to CAA’s prior knowledge of Weinstein’s alleged propensity toward sexual assault, plaintiff alleges that the year before the assault at issue, another CAA client reported to CAA that Weinstein proposed sex in exchange for career opportunities. The complaint alleges that CAA advised this woman that it was pointless to do anything about the encounter, which advice is similar to that alleged to have been given plaintiff after she told them of Weinstein’s assault on her, i.e., that nothing should be done about it. CAA representatives are claimed to have advised her not to report the assault because she likely would not be believed, would not receive more than $100,000, and might be sued by Weinstein for libel. These allegations, taken together, suggest that CAA knew or had reason to know of a potential assault by Weinstein.

Disney, CAA and Miramax did not respond to request for comment on today’s order. If and when they do, this post will be updated.

Last month a Manhattan judge earlier this month set a tentative November 12 start date of the rape retrial for Weinstein.