| Harvey
Weinstein Lawyer Says SDNY
Judges Engelmayer and
Hellerstein Rubber Stamped Sweet
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Nov 6 – In the wave of litigation
against Harvey Weinstein, the
sex Trafficking
Victims
Protection Act
charge again arose on November
6, this time before District
Judge Ronnie Abrams of the
U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
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.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold
Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
