INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
NEW YORK COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------- X
KAJA SOKOLA,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, ROBERT WEINSTEIN, :
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, DISNEY
:
ENTERPRISES, INC., MIRAMAX HOLDING
:
CORP., MIRAMAX FILM NY LLC f/k/a
:
MIRAMAX FILM CORP., and DOE CORP. 1-10, :
:
:
Defendants.
:
------------------------------------------------------------- X

SUMMONS
Plaintiff designates
NEW YORK COUNTY
as the place of trial
The basis of the venue is:
CPLR § 503(a)

To the above-named Defendants:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve
a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance on the Plaintiff’s attorney within twenty (20) days after service of this summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete if this
summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your
failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief
demanded in the complaint.
Dated: December 19, 2019
New York, New York
WIGDOR LLP

By: _________________________
Douglas H. Wigdor
Bryan L. Arbeit
WIGDOR LLP
85 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
barbeit@wigdorlaw.com

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
1 of
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

25

 INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN MINTZER, P.C.
Kevin Mintzer
1350 Broadway, Suite 1400
New York, New York 10018
Telephone: (646) 843-8180
km@mintzerfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Kaja Sokola

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to2 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
2 of
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

25

 INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

 

NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
NEW YORK COUNTY
-------------------------------------------------------------X
KAJA SOKOLA,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, ROBERT
:
WEINSTEIN, THE WALT DISNEY
:
COMPANY, DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
:
MIRAMAX HOLDING CORP., MIRAMAX
:
FILM NY LLC f/k/a MIRAMAX FILM CORP., :
and DOE CORP. 1-10,
:
:
:
Defendants.
:
-------------------------------------------------------------X

Index No. ________

COMPLAINT

Jury Trial Demanded

Plaintiff Kaja Sokola (“Plaintiff” or “Sokola”) by her counsel, Wigdor LLP and The Law
Office of Kevin Mintzer, P.C., for her complaint against Harvey Weinstein, Robert Weinstein, The
Walt Disney Company, Disney Enterprises, Inc. (together with The Walt Disney Company,
“Disney”), Miramax Holding Corp., Miramax Film NY LLC f/k/a Miramax Film Corp. (together
with Miramax Holding Corp., “Miramax”) and Doe Corp. 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”),
alleges as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

This case illustrates the depth of Harvey Weinstein’s depravity. In 2002, Kaja

Sokola was a sixteen-year-old girl from Poland who had come to the United States to work as a
fashion model and to try to become an actress. Soon after, she was introduced to Harvey Weinstein
at an event associated with her modeling agency. Harvey Weinstein, co-head of the renowned
Miramax movie studio and employed by Disney, claimed that he was interested in helping Sokola

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
3 of
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

25

 INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

with her prospective acting career and wanted to meet with her for lunch. Naïve as the child that
she was, Sokola believed him.
2.

Several days later, Harvey Weinstein picked Sokola up with his company-provided

car and driver. But instead of taking her to lunch, as promised, Harvey Weinstein took Sokola
without her consent to his apartment. He would not let her leave until after he terrified and sexually
abused her. This traumatic day has been etched in Sokola’s mind every day thereafter, and it has
caused her immense emotional pain and suffering, even seventeen years later and long after she
gave up her dreams of acting or working in the entertainment industry.
3.

Although Sokola did not know it at the time she was victimized, in the last two

years, she and the rest of the world have learned that Harvey Weinstein did not act alone in sexually
assaulting her and so many others. Rather, he was supported by a large group of people who
helped him to identify new potential victims, to cover up his misdeeds, and who looked away
instead helping to protect the women – and in this case, the girl – who were in harm’s way.
4.

Chief among Harvey Weinstein’s enablers was his brother, Robert Weinstein, his

longtime collaborator, business partner and co-head of Miramax. Contrary to Robert Weinstein’s
current claims that he did not know about his brother’s predatory behavior, the facts demonstrate
that Robert Weinstein not only knew about it, but he affirmatively assisted Harvey Weinstein in
paying off victims to silence them, ensuring that future victims had no way to protect themselves.
5.

Robert Weinstein was not alone. Indeed, numerous employees and executives of

Miramax and Disney were aware of Harvey Weinstein’s pattern of misconduct, but the companies
that employed him utterly failed to supervise him, and they continued to empower him with their
prestige and resources and allowed him to find more victims, including Kaja Sokola.

 

2

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
4 of
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

25

 CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

6.

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

Were it not for the gross neglect of these individuals and companies and their failure

to exercise reasonable care, Sokola would have been spared from Harvey Weinstein’s predatory
conduct.
7.

Despite the extensive record of Harvey Weinstein’s repeated sexual misconduct

and the negligence of his employers and enablers, until recently, Sokola could not have hoped for
any justice or accountability for what Harvey Weinstein did to her to her when she was a child.
The statute of limitations would have barred her claims, and she would be forced to accept the
inadequate so-called “global settlement” that is being unfairly foisted upon so many other
Weinstein victims.
8.

Fortunately, however, the New York legislature recently passed the Child Victims

Act, which allows minor victims of sexual abuse such as Kaja Sokola to seek accountability against
the people and entities that harmed them, even if those claims would have previously been time
barred.
9.

Accordingly, Sokola files this case against the Defendants to obtain some measure

of justice for the damage inflicted on her as a child.
PARTIES
10.

Plaintiff Sokola is a 33-year-old woman. She is a citizen and resident of Poland.

Sokola graduated from the SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities with a Master of
Science degree in psychology and currently works in Poland as a clinical psychologist and
psychotherapist focusing on the treatment of eating disorders and additions.
11.

Defendant Harvey Weinstein is, on information and belief, a resident of New York

and Connecticut. He is a former co-chairman of Miramax and reported to Executives at Disney.

 

3

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
5 of
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

25

 INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

Miramax and Disney had the power to hire and fire Harvey Weinstein, set his pay and control his
work conditions.
12.

Defendant Robert Weinstein is, on information and belief, a resident of California.

Robert Weinstein is the brother of Harvey Weinstein and the former co-chairman of Miramax.
Robert Weinstein has known of Harvey Weinstein’s pattern and practice of predatory sexual
conduct toward women, including during the time the brothers worked at Miramax.
13.

Defendant Miramax Holding Corp. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal

place of business in Burbank, California. On information and belief, Miramax Holding Corp. is a
successor entity of one of the Miramax entities that employed Harvey Weinstein or for which
Harvey Weinstein acted as an officer or director.
14.

Miramax Film NY, LLC is a New York corporation with its principal place of

business in Santa Monica, California. On information and belief, in 2010, Miramax Film NY,
LLC merged with and assumed all liabilities of Miramax Film Corp., which was one of the
Miramax entities that employed Harvey Weinstein or for which Harvey Weinstein acted as an
officer or director. Miramax Film Corp. at all relevant times herein was a subsidiary of The Walt
Disney Company. Miramax Holding Corp., Miramax Film NY, LLC and/or Miramax Film Corp
are collectively referred to herein as “Miramax.”
15.

Defendant The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”) is a Delaware corporation with

its principal place of business located in Burbank, California. Miramax Film Corp., Disney and
Harvey Weinstein entered into two employment agreements effective for the periods 1993 to 1995
and 1995 to 1999.1

1

See Doe v. Weinstein, 2018 ONSC 2122 (Can. Ont. S.C.J. Mar. 19, 2018), available at
http://canlii.ca/t/hrg30.
 

4

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
6 of
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

25

 INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

16.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

On information and belief, Disney exercised oversight and control over Miramax

and Harvey Weinstein, including, not limited to: paying Miramax’s employees; controlling
Miramax’s budget; approving (or vetoing) requests for increased film budgets for Miramax;
auditing Miramax’s books; and reviewing, approving and paying the business expenses of
Miramax.
17.

Defendant Disney Enterprises, Inc. (“Disney Enterprises”) is a Delaware

corporation with its principal place of business in Burbank, California. Disney Enterprises and
Miramax entered into a 1999 employment agreement with Harvey Weinstein, and Disney
Enterprises agreed to be jointly and severally liable with Miramax from 1999 until the expiration
of the employment agreement in or about 2005.2 The Walt Disney Company and Disney
Enterprises, Inc. are referred to collectively herein as “Disney.”
18.

Defendant Doe Corp. 1-10 are the unknown successor and related entities of

Miramax and Disney that employed Harvey Weinstein during the relevant time period.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19.

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to New York Civil Practice

Laws and Rules (“CPLR”) § 301.
20.

Venue is proper in New York County pursuant to CPLR § 503(a) because a

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in New York County.
21.

Plaintiff, proceeding as Jane Doe, originally filed some of the claims asserted herein

as a named class representative in the purported class action entitled Geiss, et al. v. The Weinstein
Company Holdings et al., No. 17 Civ. 09554 in the United States District Court for the Southern
2

See Doe v. Weinstein, 2018 ONSC 2122 (Can. Ont. S.C.J. Mar. 19, 2018), available at
http://canlii.ca/t/hrg30.

 

5

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
7 of
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

25

 CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

District of New York (“Geiss”). By Order and Opinion signed on April 17, 2019, the Court in
Geiss dismissed Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice until they could be timely refiled under CPLR
§ 214-g, which was adopted as part of the Child Victims Act. This Complaint is filed consistently
with the Geiss Court’s April 17, 2019 Order and Opinion.
FACTS
Background Regarding the Weinstein Brothers and Miramax
22.

In the late 1970s, brothers Harvey and Robert Weinstein created a small

independent film-distribution company named Miramax.
23.

Throughout the 1980s, Harvey and Robert Weinstein grew in prominence in the

film industry as Miramax produced and distributed films that achieved both critical attention and
commercial success.
24.

In 1993, after the success of the motion picture The Crying Game, Disney

purchased Miramax from Harvey and Robert Weinstein in a deal valued between $60 to $80
million.
25.

The next year, Miramax released its first blockbuster, Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp

Fiction, and distributed the popular independent film Clerks.
26.

Miramax won its first Academy Award for Best Picture in 1997 with the victory of

The English Patient. In the following years, Miramax produced many highly successful films,
including Good Will Hunting and Shakespeare in Love, both of which won many Academy
Awards.
27.

By 2002, Harvey and Robert Weinstein had become enormously powerful and

influential producers in the film and television industry.

 

6

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
8 of
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

25

 CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

28.

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

By 2002, Harvey Weinstein had also developed a propensity for sexually harassing,

sexually assaulting, and/or attempting to sexual assault women who worked or were seeking to
work in the film industry.
29.

Using the power, influence and resources of his position at Miramax, Harvey

Weinstein often met privately with women who were seeking acting roles in Miramax productions.
During many of these meetings, which were supposed to be for business purposes, Harvey
Weinstein sought sexual contact with the women whom he had induced to see him, using promises
of career assistance, threats of career destruction and physical force to overcome the resistance of
women who did not wish to have sexual contact with him.
Harvey Weinstein’s Sexual Abuse of Kaja Sokola
30.

In or about September 2002, 16-year-old Kaja Sokola was attending an event in

Manhattan associated with her modeling agency. Less than a month prior, Sokola had moved to
the United States from Poland with dreams of becoming an actress. She was living for the first
time without her parents, and she had never before lived outside of Poland. She was young, naïve
and impressionable.
31.

At the event with her modeling agency, Sokola met Harvey Weinstein, who she

learned was a producer. When Weinstein, then 50 years old, learned Sokola was interested in
becoming an actress, he gave her his card and directed her to give him her phone number. He told
Sokola that they would have lunch to discuss her future.
32.

This is a family picture of Sokola taken when she was 17, approximately one year

older than when she met Harvey Weinstein:

 

7

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
9 of
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

25

 CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

33.

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

Sokola was amazed and excited that an important American film producer was

interested in her future. It never occurred to her that his intentions towards her were anything other
than professional and honorable.
34.

Approximately three days later, Harvey Weinstein called to inform Sokola that he

would pick her up with his driver for lunch. Sokola understood that the lunch with Harvey
Weinstein would be for business purposes and to discuss her career, including opportunities for
roles on Miramax projects.
35.

On information and belief, in arranging the meeting and picking up Sokola,

Weinstein used a phone, car and driver that were paid for or owned by Miramax and/or Disney so
that he could conduct the business of those companies.
36.

In the car, Harvey Weinstein asked Sokola where she was from and how old she

was. She replied that she was sixteen and was from Poland.
37.

Instead of taking them to a restaurant, Harvey Weinstein’s driver dropped the two

at Harvey Weinstein’s Soho apartment. Sokola had not agreed to go there, but she was given no
choice.

 

8

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
10 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

38.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

As Sokola rode the elevator with him in his building, she became nervous. When

the elevator door opened directly into Harvey Weinstein’s apartment, Sokola realized that they
were completely alone.
39.

Once alone with Sokola, Harvey Weinstein wasted no time in aggressively and

threateningly demanding sex. He told her that if she wanted to be an actress, she would have to
be comfortable doing whatever the director told her to do—including losing her inhibitions and
getting naked. He then instructed Sokola to take off her clothes. Terrified, Sokola followed his
instructions and took off her blouse and unzipped her jeans. Sokola felt as though she was no
longer in control of her body.
40.

Weinstein took Sokola’s hand and placed it on her vagina, instructing her to touch

herself. He also touched Sokola vagina.
41.

Terrified and struggling to hold back tears, Sokola said she did not want to do

anything further and resisted his demands. Sokola had no intention or understanding when she
agreed to a business lunch that she would be put in this position.
42.

Harvey Weinstein threatened and pressured Sokola, saying that he had “made” the

careers of Penelope Cruz and Gwyneth Paltrow, and that neither would be working without him.
He intimated that Sokola would never work as an actress unless she acquiesced to his demands.
43.

Harvey Weinstein then took off his pants and forcibly held Sokola while taking her

hand and making her touch and massage his penis while he grabbed at her breasts.
44.

As Harvey Weinstein forcibly caused her to touch him, Sokola continuously

protested. However, Harvey Weinstein’s demeanor became intense, as if he was hunting prey.
Sokola realized then he was determined to sexually satisfy himself with her in whatever way he
wanted.
 

9

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
11 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

45.

Weinstein eventually ejaculated on the floor.

46.

Overwhelmed by fear and emotion, Sokola tried to leave the apartment, but she

could not get out because Weinstein was blocking the door, holding her arms and yelling at her to
calm down. Weinstein insisted that what had just happened was normal. Sokola began to scream
at Harvey Weinstein, telling him that she did not want to touch him or do what he wanted of her.
Harvey Weinstein returned Sokola’s shouting with anger, which made her even more scared.
Sokola realized that she would have to calm down and be quiet if she would have any chance of
escaping from Weinstein without being harmed even more.
47.

Throughout the incident, Sokola berated herself.

She felt angry at Harvey

Weinstein’s demands, and ashamed that he was causing her to unwillingly engage in sex acts.
Harvey Weinstein made clear that refusing his sexual demands would mean giving up the
opportunity to make it in Hollywood.
48.

As Harvey Weinstein finally let Sokola leave, he told her that she needed to work

on her stubbornness.
49.

Approximately one week after the incident at his apartment, Harvey Weinstein

called Sokola to ask how she was doing. She had spent the week worrying that she had destroyed
her life and career by refusing to passively go along with Weinstein’s wishes.
50.

Harvey Weinstein thereafter persisted in his pursuits against Sokola and took every

opportunity to make sure that she understood that he was the only person who could help her
become an actress.

Based on what happened in Harvey Weinstein’s apartment, Sokola

experienced fear and anxiety whenever she communicated with him.
51.

Harvey Weinstein’s ongoing emotional abuse, and the guilt, shame and anxiety that

flowed from the 2002 incident—when she was 16 and alone with Harvey Weinstein—took a toll
 

10

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
12 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

on Sokola, including long term depression, anorexia and difficulty in maintaining healthy
relationships with men.
52.

Harvey Weinstein should never have been in a position to sexually abuse Sokola.

In fact, Sokola only experienced this trauma because numerous individuals, including Robert
Weinstein and other high level officers and directors of Miramax and Disney, affirmatively
enabled Harvey Weinstein’s continuing sexual misconduct and looked the other way when they
learned of repeated prior instances of Harvey Weinstein sexually harassing and sexually assaulting
women he encountered in working for Miramax and Disney.
Robert Weinstein’s Knowledge and Concealment of Harvey Weinstein’s Sexual Misconduct
53.

At Miramax, Robert Weinstein, who ran the company with his brother, knew that

Harvey Weinstein engaged in a pattern of sexual misconduct. Robert Weinstein not only failed to
do anything to stop his brother, he repeatedly helped Harvey Weinstein conceal his misconduct
and claim new victims.
54.

Robert Weinstein’s assistant at Miramax in the early 1990s, Kathy DeClesis, told

the New York Times that Harvey Weinstein’s harassment of women “wasn’t a secret to the inner
circle,” which included Robert Weinstein.3
55.

DeClesis also supervised a young woman who left the company abruptly after an

encounter with Harvey Weinstein, and that young woman later received a settlement.4

3

Jodi Kantor & Megan Twohey, Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for
Decades, The New York Times (Oct. 5, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinsteinharassment-allegations.html (last accessed December 18, 2019).

4

 

Id.

11

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
13 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

56.

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

Robert Weinstein personally knew the circumstances that caused this young

woman’s abrupt departure because DeClesis handed Robert Weinstein a letter from the young
woman’s lawyer, telling him that, “Your brother is a pig.”5
57.

In 1998, Robert Weinstein personally paid £250,000 to settle claims asserting that

Harvey Weinstein had sexually harassed and/or attempted to rape two female employees of
Miramax.
58.

Zelda Perkins, who had been Harvey Weinstein’s assistant at Miramax, claimed

that Harvey Weinstein had repeatedly sexually harassed her by, among other behavior, walking
around naked when they were together in his hotel suite, asking her to give him massages, and
trying to pull her into bed with him.6
59.

Rowena Chiu, also a former assistant of Harvey Weinstein, alleged that Harvey

Weinstein, while they were together in his hotel suite at the Venice Film Festival, had made a
series of sexual requests to her, which she rejected, and that he then forcibly massaged her legs,
took off her tights, and held her on the bed, telling her it would all be over with one thrust. She
managed to escape right before she was raped.7
60.

Both Perkins and Chiu, as a condition of their settlements with the Miramax Film

Corp., were forced to sign a strict confidentiality agreement. The settlement agreement explicitly

5

Halle Kiefer, Bob Weinstein’s Former Assistant Says She Told Him About His Brother Harvey’s
Sexual Harassment Over 25 Years Ago, Vulture.com (Oct. 20, 2017),
https://www.vulture.com/2017/10/bob-weinstein-ex-assistant-he-knew-about-harvey-decades-ago.html
(last accessed December 18, 2019).

6

Matthew Garrahan, Harvey Weinstein: How lawyers kept a lid on sexual harassment claims,
Financial Times (Oct. 23, 2017), https://on.ft.com/2NFpcdh (last accessed December 18, 2019).

7

Rowena Chiu, Harvey Weinstein Told Me He Likes Chinese Girls, New York Times (Oct. 5
2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/05/opinion/sunday/harvey-weinstein-rowena-chiu.html (last
accessed December 18, 2019).
 

12

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
14 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

lists Robert Weinstein, Harvey Weinstein and Miramax Film Corp. among the parties being
released, and it provides that only Robert Weinstein or Harvey Weinstein could consent to the
release of confidential information covered by the settlement agreement.8
61.

As part of the settlement agreement with Perkins, Harvey Weinstein agreed to

attend therapy, and Miramax was required to dismiss Harvey Weinstein if there were any further
complaints (although it never did despite additional subsequent complaints). The settlement
agreement also required that Miramax establish a proper complaint procedure for future
complaints.
62.

Despite the fact that Robert Weinstein and others at Miramax were aware of the

allegations made by Perkins and Chiu against Harvey Weinstein, no investigation was conducted,
and no discipline was imposed on Harvey Weinstein.
63.

According to the New York Times, Robert Weinstein also participated in settling

another sexual assault allegation made against Harvey Weinstein in 1990 by another of his
assistants.9
64.

In addition to the above, Robert Weinstein knew or should have known that his

brother was a danger to sexually assault Kaja Sokola given that Robert Weinstein:
a.

witnessed his brother’s physically and verbally abusive behavior;

b.

attended meetings with Harvey and other Miramax executives and employees
while Harvey was wearing only a bathrobe or underwear;

8

Excerpts of the agreements were submitted to the Women and Equalities Committee of the U.K.
Parliament and can be found at https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/womenand-equalities/Correspondence/Zelda-Perkins-SHW0058.pdf (last accessed December 18, 2019).
9

Megan Twohey et al., Weinstein’s Complicity Machine, The New York Times (Dec. 5, 2017),
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/05/us/harvey-weinstein-complicity.html
(last accessed
December 18, 2019)
 

13

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
15 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

c.

received direct and indirect verbal and written complaints made by and on behalf
of female victims who were sexually assaulted by Harvey Weinstein; and

d.

knew of and authorized Miramax to make payments to settle claims by women
who were sexually assaulted by Weinstein.

65.

Robert Weinstein knew that Harvey Weinstein’s pattern of assault was a problem,

but he deliberately chose to cover it up and pretend it did not happen.
66.

For example, when Robert Weinstein dated Ivana Lowell, who was the Vice

President of the book division at Miramax in the 1990s, Robert Weinstein asked her if she had
slept with his brother, and she responded “no, but not for want of him aggressively trying, and all
the other women…,” at which point Robert cut her off and said: “No, I don’t want to know.”10
Disney and Miramax’s Knowledge of Harvey Weinstein’s Propensity to Engage in Sexual
Harassment and Sexual Assault
67.

In addition to Robert Weinstein, many other executives at Miramax and/or Disney

were aware of Harvey Weinstein’s propensity to sexually harass and sexually assault women with
whom he was meeting while conducting business for Miramax.
68.

Irwin Reiter, the Executive Vice President of Accounting and Financial Reporting

for Miramax from 1989 to 2005, has admitted that Weinstein’s “mistreatment of women” was an
ongoing problem.
69.

Reiter discussed Harvey Weinstein’s pattern of sexual harassment and assaults of

women with other officers within Miramax, including Robert Weinstein.
70.

Reiter reviewed and handled payments to Harvey Weinstein’s victims from

Miramax funds, as well as caused Disney to contribute to such payments directly or indirectly.

10

Former Miramax Executive Describes Working for Harvey Weinstein as a “Madhouse”, Inside
Edition (October 17, 2017), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULejo9adUqg (last accessed
December 18, 2019).
 

14

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
16 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

71.

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

Despite his extensive knowledge, Reiter failed to cause any independent

investigations to be undertaken or take any actions to prevent or diminish the likelihood of further
assaults.
72.

Mark Gill was head of marketing from approximately 1994 to 1997 in Miramax’s

New York office. He then was the President of Miramax’s Los Angeles division from
approximately 1997 to 2002.
73.

Gill told The New York Times that, behind the scenes at Miramax, Weinstein’s

treatment of women “was the biggest mess of all.”
74.

Gill’s knowledge came from witnessing Weinstein sexually inappropriate and

harassing behavior. Gill also received direct complaints from women after assaults or harassment
occurred.
75.

Despite his extensive knowledge, Gill failed to cause any independent

investigations to be undertaken or take any actions to prevent or diminish the likelihood of further
assaults.
76.

Miramax officer Barbara Schneeweiss knew or should have known that Harvey

Weinstein was regularly sexually assaulting, battering, harassing and threatening women with
whom he was meeting with on Miramax business.
77.

Schneeweiss worked at Miramax from 1996-2005. Schneeweiss regularly brought

young actresses to Harvey Weinstein, under the guise of a legitimate business meeting, who would
then be sexually harassed or assaulted by Weinstein.
78.

Based on her interactions with these victims and Harvey Weinstein, Schneeweiss

knew or should have known that Harvey Weinstein was engaging in sexual misconduct and abuse,

 

15

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
17 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

but she failed to take any action to have Harvey Weinstein investigated or to diminish the
likelihood of further assaults.
79.

Miramax officer Rick Schwartz knew or should have known that Harvey Weinstein

was regularly sexually assaulting, battering, harassing and threatening women with whom he was
meeting with on Miramax business.
80.

As the Senior Vice President of Production at Miramax from 1999 to 2006,

Schwartz had direct knowledge and facilitated assaults by Harvey Weinstein, including
Weinstein’s alleged attempted sexual assault in 1998 on Zoe Brock, who, like Sokola, was a model
who sought to work as an actress.
81.

Schwartz was regularly tasked with luring victims to Weinstein’s hotel suites.

Sometimes Schwartz would lead the women up to Weinstein’s hotel suite to give the meeting an
air of legitimacy. Schwartz would then leave the meeting or ensure that the victim was left alone
with Weinstein while the assault occurred.
82.

Schwartz was also regularly tasked with taking care of the victims after the assaults

occurred. After Schwartz learned about what happened to Zoe Brock, Schwartz apologized for
Weinstein’s behavior, admitting that it had happened before.
83.

Despite his extensive knowledge, Schwartz failed to cause any independent

investigations to be undertaken or take any actions to prevent or diminish the likelihood of further
assaults – but rather continued to facilitate the assaults throughout his tenure at Miramax.
84.

Miramax officer Nancy Ashbrooke knew or should have known that Harvey

Weinstein was regularly sexually assaulting, battering, harassing and threatening women.

 

16

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
18 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

85.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

As the Vice President of Human Resources for Miramax from 1991 to 2000,

Ashbrooke had direct knowledge of complaints regarding Weinstein’s sexual misconduct and
directly witnessed Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment of women.
86.

Ashbrooke was responsible for the human resources department at Miramax, where

numerous complaints of sexual misconduct and assault against Harvey Weinstein were not
properly handled, including the Zelda Perkins and Rowena Chiu complaints discussed above.
87.

Despite Miramax’s corporate knowledge of the Perkins and Chiu settlement

agreement with Miramax, Ashbrooke did not take any action or implement any of the required
terms of the settlement that could have prevented additional sexual assaults by Harvey Weinstein.
Nor did Ashbrooke or Miramax take any action against Harvey Weinstein when they learned of
additional complaints about Harvey’s conduct.
88.

Disney employed and paid the salaries of many of the people who performed work

for Miramax and who helped facilitate Harvey Weinstein’s pattern of assaults.
89.

As discussed above, Harvey Weinstein initially entered into two employment

agreements to which both Miramax and The Walt Disney Company were signatories, the first of
which was effective from in or about 1993-1995 and the second from 1995-1999. Harvey
Weinstein’s third employment agreement, to which Disney Enterprises and Miramax were
signatories and pursuant to which Disney Enterprises was jointly and severally liable with
Miramax, was effective from 1999 until in or about 2005.
90.

While at Miramax, Harvey Weinstein reported directly to Michael Eisner, who was

Disney’s Chief Executive Officer. Eisner delegated oversight of Harvey Weinstein to a series of
Disney executives who did not adequately supervise him. While Eisner originally delegated
oversight to Jeffrey Katzenberg, the Chairman of Disney, Katzenberg delegated oversight of the
 

17

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
19 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

Weinstein brothers in 1994 to a marketing and distribution executive Dick Cook, who could not
control the brothers. After just a few months, Katzenberg put Bill Mechanic, then head of Disney’s
international and worldwide video division, in charge of Miramax. Mechanic quickly identified
that Miramax did not follow the law in its human resources practices.
91.

After Mechanic left Disney in the fall of 1994, Eisner assigned Joe Roth to oversee

Miramax and Harvey Weinstein. Roth found himself “putting out fires the brothers had started,”
including with talent agents and talent agencies who the Weinsteins were always battering to, inter
alia, “get somebody off of a picture, deliver a client, whatever the issue was.”11 These issues
included Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment of women. And, despite the fact that Roth was
actively overseeing them, Harvey and Robert Weinstein nonetheless “always wanted to go directly
to Michael [Eisner].”12
92.

Eisner thus did not permit Miramax to be completely autonomous and had

knowledge not only of financial matters, but also Harvey Weinstein’s pattern of misconduct
toward women.
93.

Harvey Weinstein’s executive assistant Barbara Schneeweiss was jointly

employed by Miramax and Disney.

According to Schneeweiss, Disney paid Miramax’s

employees, controlled Miramax’s budget, approved (or vetoed) Miramax’s requests for increased
film budgets, audited Miramax’s books, and reviewed, approved (or rejected), and paid for
Miramax’s business expenses.
94.

During the time Disney owned Miramax, Miramax paid settlements to multiple

women who were victims of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment and abuse. Based on Disney’s

11

Peter Biskind, Down and Dirty Pictures (2004), at 198.

12

Id.

 

18

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
20 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

control of Miramax finances, Disney knew or should have known of these payments, which should
have caused additional inquiry and investigation.
95.

Moreover, given that Eisner had assigned eyes and ears from Disney to watch over

Harvey Weinstein – and those persons had knowledge of Harvey Weinstein’s conduct, Eisner and
Disney knew or should have known of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment and abuse.
96.

Instead of taking action, including but not limited to an independent investigation

of Weinstein’s conduct and/or the implementation of controls to prevent further abuse and/or the
termination of Weinstein, Eisner and Disney chose to publicly misrepresent that they did not have
the right to exercise control over Weinstein. In fact, every corporation has the duty to oversee and
supervise its employees; it is not a duty that can be contractually waived.
Timeliness Under the Child Victims Act
97.

This action is timely because it falls within CPLR 214-g and is brought during the

one-year time period set forth in that section. The claims brought herein allege intentional and
negligent acts and/or omissions for physical, psychological and other injury suffered as a result of
conduct that would constitute sexual offenses as defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal
Law, and such acts and/or omissions were committed against Kaja Sokola when she was less than
eighteen years of age.
98.

Specifically, the conduct that gives rise to Kaja Sokola’s claims herein would

constitute a violation of, inter alia, New York Penal Law, 130.52 (forcible touching), 130.55
(sexual abuse in the third degree) and 130.65 (sexual abuse in the first degree) (collectively, the
“Child Sex Crimes”).

 

19

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
21 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Battery)
Against Harvey Weinstein
99.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-96 as if fully set forth herein.

100.

In performing the Child Sex Crimes described above, Defendant Harvey Weinstein

committed a battery against Plaintiff because he intentionally engaged in unlawful, intentional and
offensive touching or application of force to Plaintiff’s person.
101.

As a result of Harvey Weinstein’s alleged conduct Sokola has suffered physical

injury, severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, economic harm and other
consequential damages.
102.

The conduct of Harvey Weinstein described above was willful, wanton and

malicious. At all relevant times, Harvey Weinstein acted with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
rights and feelings, acted with the knowledge of or with reckless disregard for the fact that his
conduct was certain to cause injury and/or humiliation to Plaintiff, and intended to cause fear,
physical injury and/or pain and suffering to Plaintiff. By virtue of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled
to recover punitive and exemplary damages from Harvey Weinstein according to proof at trial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence)
Against Miramax, Disney and Robert Weinstein
103.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-100 as if fully set forth herein.

104.

Miramax, Disney and Robert Weinstein’s conduct described herein, including the

negligent retention and/or supervision of Harvey Weinstein and affirmative acts covering up and
empowering Harvey Weinstein to commit sexual assaults, resulted in Harvey Weinstein’s
commission of the Child Sex Crimes against Plaintiff.

 

20

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
22 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

105.

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

Based on prior complaints against Harvey Weinstein, Miramax and Disney knew

or reasonably should have known that Harvey Weinstein had a propensity to engage in sexual
misconduct and would use his position with Miramax to lure Plaintiff and other similarly situated
female aspiring actresses to his apartment under the guise of discussing business opportunities to
sexually harass, batter and assault them.
106.

Robert Weinstein’s prior acts of covering up for Harvey Weinstein’s sexual

misconduct with women with whom he worked created a continuing risk of Harvey Weinstein
engaging in similar sexual misconduct, but Robert Weinstein nonetheless allowed Harvey
Weinstein to have the authority and resources to engage in sexual misconduct with female
employees and actresses and knew Harvey Weinstein continued to engage in sexual misconduct
and/or that Harvey Weinstein had the temptation or opportunity to engage in sexual misconduct.
107.

Miramax, Disney and Robert Weinstein had a duty of care to properly hire, train,

retain, supervise and discipline their employees to avoid unreasonable harm to others or to take
steps to alleviate harm caused by one’s affirmative conduct.
108.

Miramax, Disney and Robert Weinstein breached their duty of care by way of their

own conduct as alleged herein, including, but not limited to, terminating Harvey Weinstein’s
employment or taking steps to warn or otherwise reduce the risk that Harvey Weinstein would use
his position of power to continue to engage in sexual misconduct with female employees and
actresses.
109.

The burden on Miramax, Disney and Robert Weinstein to take some action to warn

or otherwise reduce the risk of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct was slight, while the harm
from Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct was grave and caused significant physical and
mental harm on often naïve and vulnerable female employees and aspiring actresses.
 

21

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
23 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

110.

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

Miramax, Disney and Robert Weinstein’s negligent and/or affirmative conduct in

relation to Harvey Weinstein’s propensity to engage in sexual misconduct was a substantial factor
in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
111.

As a direct and proximate result of Miramax, Disney and Robert Weinstein’s

negligent and/or affirmative conduct, as alleged hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered physical injury,
severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress and anxiety,
and economic harm.
112.

The conduct described above by Miramax, Disney and Robert Weinstein was

willful, wanton and malicious. At all relevant times, Miramax, Disney and Robert Weinstein acted
with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and feelings and also acted with the knowledge of or
with reckless disregard for the fact that their conduct was certain to cause injury and/or humiliation
to Plaintiff and other similarly situated aspiring actresses. By virtue of the foregoing, Plaintiff is
entitled to recover punitive and exemplary damages from Miramax, Disney and Robert Weinstein
according to proof at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment be entered in her favor against Defendants, and
each of them, as follows:
1.

For a money judgment representing compensatory damages including

consequential damages, lost wages, earning, and all other sums of money, together with
interest on these amounts, according to proof;
2.

For an award of money judgment for mental pain and anguish and severe

emotional distress, according to proof;
3.
 

For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof;
22

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
24 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.

 INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2019

4.

For attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by statute;

5.

For prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and

6.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: December 19, 2019
New York, New York
WIGDOR LLP

By: _________________________
Douglas H. Wigdor
Bryan L. Arbeit
WIGDOR LLP
85 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
barbeit@wigdorlaw.com
THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN MINTZER, P.C.
Kevin Mintzer
1350 Broadway, Suite 1400
New York, New York 10018
Telephone: (646) 843-8180
km@mintzerfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Kaja Sokola

 

23

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
25 of 25
accepted for filing by the County Clerk.