1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 HERMAN LAW 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 540 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Jeff Herman (pending pro hac vice admission) Daniel Ellis California Bar No. 298639 dellis@hermanlaw.com Arick Fudali California Bar No. 296364 afudali@hermanlaw.com Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Dominique Huett 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 11 12 13 DOMINIQUE HUETT, Plaintiff, 14 vs. 15 16 THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY LLC, Defendant. 17 18 19 ) CASE NO: BC680869 ) ) CIVIL COMPLAINT ALLEGING ) DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENCE ) ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ) ) ) ) ) ) 20 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 21 22 23 24 25 1. Plaintiff Dominique Huett is a citizen and resident of New York. 2. Defendant The Weinstein Company LLC (hereinafter referred to as “TWC”) is a Delaware limited liability company whose principle place of business is in New York, New York. 26 27 28 3. Venue properly lies in this county in that Defendant regularly conducts business in this county, and the torts described herein were committed in this county. This Court has –1 – CIVIL COMPLAINT 1 jurisdiction in that this is a claim for damages of not less than $5 million, well in excess of the 2 jurisdictional minimum of $25,000. 3 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 4 5 4. In or about November 2010, Plaintiff Dominique Huett and Harvey Weinstein 6 arranged to meet each other at The Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel in Beverly Hills, California. 7 Plaintiff was an aspiring actress at the time and the purpose of the meeting was to discuss 8 Weinstein’s offer to assist Plaintiff in procuring future television and/or film roles. The 9 communications to arrange this meeting included e-mails from the e-mail address of 10 11 12 13 14 Weinstein’s assistant at TWC. 5. Plaintiff and Weinstein initially met at the bar of The Peninsula hotel, where they discussed Weinstein’s interest in assisting Plaintiff with her acting career. During their conversation, Plaintiff noticed Weinstein staring at her breasts. Weinstein asked Plaintiff is she 15 16 had ever had a “boob job” and asked her to show him her breasts. Plaintiff refused and was 17 made uncomfortable by the question and the request. However, Weinstein informed Plaintiff 18 that the purpose of the questioning was that it would be beneficial for securing future roles if 19 she did not have breast augmentation. 20 6. At some point during their conversation, Weinstein, who was at the time living at 21 22 the hotel, invited Plaintiff to his room under the guise of continuing their business meeting. 23 Plaintiff agreed to move the meeting to his hotel room, believing they were to continue their 24 discussion regarding her career. 25 26 7. While in Weinstein’s room, the two continued their conversation regarding Plaintiff’s career. At some point, Weinstein excused himself to use the restroom. After several 27 28 minutes, Weinstein returned from the restroom wearing only a bathrobe. –2 – CIVIL COMPLAINT 1 2 3 8. Upon returning, Weinstein asked Plaintiff to perform a massage on him. Plaintiff said, “No,” and that she did not feel comfortable by his request. However, Weinstein persisted and would not take “no” for an answer. Weinstein laid on the bed and demanded that Plaintiff 4 5 perform a massage on him. Plaintiff ultimately complied with his demands and performed the 6 massage. 7 9. 8 9 Subsequently, Weinstein requested to perform oral sex on Plaintiff. Plaintiff was shocked and alarmed by the request and initially refused. Again, Weinstein displayed persistence and would not take “no” for an answer. Weinstein initiated and Plaintiff froze as 10 11 Weinstein removed her clothing and performed oral sex on her. Weinstein performed oral sex 12 on Plaintiff for several minutes. After performing oral sex on Plaintiff, Weinstein masturbated 13 in front of Plaintiff until he reached orgasm. 14 10. At some point during their communications, Weinstein gave Plaintiff the contact 15 16 17 18 19 20 information for an executive producer with Project Runaway, a television program produced by Defendant, and offered to secure a role for Plaintiff on the program. 11. Prior to the incident involving Plaintiff, Defendant TWC’s executives, officers and employees had actual knowledge of Weinstein’s repeated acts of sexual misconduct with women. In particular, Defendant was aware of Weinstein’s pattern of using his power to coerce 21 22 23 24 25 and force young actresses to engage in sexual acts with him. This knowledge was possessed by Defendant’s Board of Directors including, upon information and belief, Bob Weinstein. 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant was aware of allegations of sexual misconduct against Weinstein going back to the 1990s. Upon information and belief, prior to 26 the incident involving Plaintiff, Defendant was aware of multiple claims of sexual misconduct 27 28 –3 – CIVIL COMPLAINT 1 which were settled with the victims prior to the filing of suit. This knowledge was possessed by 2 Defendant’s Board of Directors including, upon information and belief, Bob Weinstein. 3 13. Prior to the incident involving Plaintiff, Defendant often aided and abetted 4 5 Weinstein in the commission of his sexual misconduct. For example, female Weinstein 6 Company employees were often used as “honeypots” to lure his victims into a false sense of 7 security. The “honeypots” would initially join a meeting along with a woman Weinstein was 8 interested in, but then Weinstein would dismiss them, leaving him alone with the woman. 9 14. Plaintiff did not discover, and a reasonable and diligent investigation would not 10 11 have disclosed, that prior to her incident Defendant was aware of numerous allegations of 12 sexual misconduct involving Weinstein. Upon information and belief, the allegations of sexual 13 misconduct involving Weinstein that Defendant was aware of were subject to nondisclosure 14 agreements and/or confidential settlements, and were otherwise only known inside TWC. Upon 15 16 information and belief, the nondisclosure agreements and/or confidential settlements legally 17 prohibited Defendant TWC, Weinstein, and the victims of the sexual misconduct from 18 discussing the allegations and Defendant’s knowledge thereof. As such, even if Plaintiff had 19 conducted a timely and reasonable investigation, she could not have discovered Defendant’s 20 prior knowledge of Weinstein’s sexual misconduct. Plaintiff was unable to discover 21 22 23 Defendant’s knowledge of Weinstein’s propensity to engage in sexual misconduct until the story of Weinstein’s pattern of sexual misconduct with young actresses broke in October 2017. 24 COUNT I (Negligence) 25 26 15. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 14 above. 27 16. At all relevant times, Defendant owed a duty to use reasonable care in the 28 retention and supervision of its employee Harvey Weinstein. –4 – CIVIL COMPLAINT 1 2 3 17. This included a duty to control Weinstein in his interactions with women during meetings taking place within the course and scope of his employment in order to prevent foreseeable harm. 4 5 18. Prior to the sexual misconduct with Plaintiff, Defendant knew or had reason to 6 believe Weinstein was likely to engage in sexual misconduct with women he came into contact 7 with during the course and scope of his employment. In particular, upon information and belief, 8 Defendant knew or should have known that Weinstein would lure young aspiring actresses into 9 compromising situations under the guise of business meetings. Prior to the incident involving 10 11 Plaintiff, Defendant’s Board of Directors possessed knowledge of Weinstein’s propensity to 12 engage in sexual misconduct. Knowledge of Weinstein’s propensity to engage in sexual 13 misconduct was additionally possessed by Defendant’s executives, officers and employees. At 14 all relevant times Defendant’s Board of Directors maintained a supervisory position over 15 16 17 Weinstein. 19. By possessing knowledge of Weinstein’s prior sexual misconduct, Defendant 18 knew or should have known that Weinstein was unfit and that this unfitness created a particular 19 risk to others. 20 20. Defendant did not act in a reasonable manner by failing to terminate Weinstein 21 22 23 24 25 and instead continued to allow him to meet with prospective actresses in private areas with the knowledge that there was a substantial likelihood for sexual misconduct. 21. Weinstein’s meeting with Plaintiff at the Peninsula hotel occurred within the course and scope of his employment. The contact between Plaintiff and Weinstein was 26 generated by the employment relationship between Defendant and Weinstein. 27 28 –5 – CIVIL COMPLAINT 22. 1 2 Defendant’s negligence in supervising and/or retaining Weinstein was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 3 23. It was foreseeable that Weinstein would engage in sexual misconduct if 4 5 Defendant continued to allow Weinstein to have private business meetings with actresses. At 6 all relevant times, Defendant knew Weinstein was using his power and position to coerce 7 women into engaging in sexual contact and knew that this sexual misconduct would cause 8 harm. 9 24. Defendant failed to institute corrective measures to protect women coming into 10 11 contact with Weinstein, including Plaintiff, from sexual misconduct despite the Board of 12 Directors possessing actual notice of Weinstein’s sexually inappropriate behavior. Such acts and 13 omissions demonstrate a conscious disregard of the safety of others. The Board of Directors was 14 aware of the probable dangerous consequences of failing to remove or adequately supervise 15 16 17 Weinstein. In failing to do so, Defendant acted with actual malice and with conscious disregard to Plaintiff’s safety. 25. 18 19 20 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff was a victim of Weinstein’s sexual misconduct. The sexual misconduct has caused Plaintiff to suffer continuing, severe and permanent psychological and emotional issues, and the loss of 21 22 enjoyment of life. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 23 24 25 26. General damages in an amount to be shown according to proof at the time of 27. Special damages including medical and psychological care expenses in an trial. 26 27 28 amount to be shown according to proof at the time of trial. –6 – CIVIL COMPLAINT 1 2 3 28. Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendant. 29. Costs of suit. 30. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 4 5 6 7 8 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this action. 9 10 11 12 Dated: October 24, 2017 HERMAN LAW 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 By: /s/ Daniel Ellis Daniel Ellis California Bar No. 298639 dellis@hermanlaw.com Arick Fudali California Bar No. 296364 afudali@hermanlaw.com Jeff Herman (pending pro hac vice admission) Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 –7 – CIVIL COMPLAINT