Paz de La Huerta V Weinstein

1 AARON G. FILLER, Esq.
SBN 302956
CHANEL KATIRAIE, Esq. SBN 315825
2 Tensor Law, P.C.
2716 Ocean Park Blvd, #3082
3
Santa Monica, California 90405
4 Tel: (310) 450-9689
Fax: (310) 496-3176
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 Paz De La Huerta
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
9 PAZ DE LA HUERTA, Case No.
10
Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to:
11 vs.
12 HARVEY WEINSTEIN, an individual;

COMPLAINT FOR:
THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY, a
13 Delaware LLC; FOUR SEASONS
1. ASSAULT
14 HOTELS, LTD, a Canadian Corporation ;
2. SEXUAL BATTERY IN VIOLATION OF
BURTON WAY HOTELS, LTD, a
CALFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1708.5
15 California Limited Partnership; BURTON
(RAPE)
WAY HOTELS LLC, a Delaware LLC; and
16 3. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
17 4. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
Defendants. 5. PREMISES NEGLIGENCE
18
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
19
20
21
22 Action Filed: November 12, 2018
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
PAZ DE LA HUERTA’S COMPLAINT FOR ASSAULT AND NEGLIGENCE vs WEINSTEIN ET AL
1
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
3 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 2
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................................................... 2
4
III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 4
5 1) First Assault on December 7, 2010 ............................................................................................................................ 4
2) Corroboration of First Assault .................................................................................................................................... 6
6 3) Second assault on December 23, 2010 .................................................................................................................... 7
4) Events at the Four Seasons Hotel Los Angeles in Beverly Hills January 14 and 15, 2011 ................. 8
7 5) Retaliatory Career Destruction Undertaken by Weinstein for De La Huerta’s Accusations and
Rejections and Equitable Estoppel of Assertion of the Statute of Limitations .......................................... 14
8 6) Endorsement by The Weinstein Company ........................................................................................................... 16
7. Further Contemporaneous Corroboration ........................................................................................................... 17
9
IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - ASSAULT ....................................................................................................... 17
10
V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – SEXUAL BATTERY .................................................................................. 18
11 VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS .............. 20
12 VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION .............................................................. 21

VIII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – PREMISES LIABILITY NEGLIGENCE ................................................. 22
13
IX. DAMAGES ......................................................................................................................................................... 23
14 X. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 24
15 XI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................................................... 24
16
17
18 I. INTRODUCTION
19 Now comes Plaintiff, Paz De La Huerta, who files this civil complaint for sexual assault,
20 and sexual battery against HARVEY WEINSTEIN, and THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY, and
21 also for negligence against BURTON WAY LTD, BURTON WAY LLC, and FOUR SEASONS
22 HOTELS LTD.
23 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24 1. Plaintiff, Paz De La Huerta (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) is and at all times
25 mentioned herein was, an individual, over the age of majority, residing in the City of Los
26 Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California and in the City of New York, County of
27 New York, State of New York.
28
-2-
1 2. Defendant Harvey Weinstein (hereinafter “Weinstein”), upon information and
2 belief, is now, and at all times mentioned herein was, an individual, over the age of majority,
3 residing in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California and in the City
4 of New York, County of New York, State of New York who has engaged in the buying and
5 selling of property in California at least at 518 North Kilkea Avenue in Beverly Hills, California
6 and who has extensive regular business activities and extensive contacts in the State of
7 California, thereby subjecting him to general jurisdiction in the State of California.
8 3. Defendant The Harvey Weinstein Company, LLC (hereinafter “TWC”) has offices
9 at 9100 Wilshire Blvd, Beverly Hills, California and also at 375 Greenwich Avenue, New York,
10 NY. It is registered with the Secretary of State, in the State of California under registration
11 number: #200513810010, having extensive regular business and extensive contacts in the State
12 of California and is therefore subject to general jurisdiction in the State of California.
13 4. Defendant BURTON WAY HOTELS, LTD, is a California Limited Partnership of
14 which Robert Cohen is the General Partner and BURTON WAY HOTELS LLC is a Delaware
15 Limited Liability Corporation (hereinafter collectively “Burton Way”). Both entities have
16 registered offices at 2029 Century Park East, #2200, Los Angeles California, 90067 and have
17 roles as owners of a hotel at 300 South Doheny Drive, Beverly Hills, California, 90048 which is
18 named THE FOUR SEASONS LOS ANGELES AT BEVERLY HILLS (hereinafter “FOUR
19 SEASONS BEVERLY HILLS”) and which is managed by the Four Seasons Hotels, LTD,
20 doing business as the Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, a Canadian Corporation, headquartered
21 at 1165 Leslie Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3C 2K8 (hereinafter “FOUR SEASONS
22 LTD”).
23 5. One of the events giving rise to this complaint took place in Los Angeles,
24 California in this Central District at 300 South Doheny Drive, Beverly Hills, California (Four
25 Seasons Los Angeles at Beverly Hills). Venue is therefore proper in this court. This court is the
26 proper court for trial in this action in that the actions and omissions of Defendants as alleged
27 herein where made within this Court’s jurisdictional area. Venue properly lies in this county in
28
-3-
1 that both Defendants regularly conduct business in this county, and one of the torts described
2 herein was committed in this county.
3 6. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities, whether they are individuals or
4 business entities, of Defendant DOES 1 through 50, and therefore sues them by such fictitious
5 names and will seek leave of this Court to insert true names and capacities once they have been
6 ascertained.
7 7. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, inclusive of DOES 1
8 through 50, were authorized and empowered by each other to act, and did so act, as agents of
9 each other, and all of the things herein alleged to have been done by them were done in the
10 capacity of such agency. Upon information and belief, all Defendants are responsible in some
11 manner for the events described herein and are liable to Plaintiff for the damages they have
12 incurred.
13 III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
14
15 8. Plaintiff alleges that her strictly professional relationship began with Weinstein
16 when she was 14 years old in 1999. Weinstein was working for the Company Miramax.
17 Miramax produced the film “Cider House Rules” in which Plaintiff was employed as an actress.
18 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information belief alleges that
19 her residence in 2010 was in the same Tribeca neighborhood of Manhattan, New York, in which
20 both TWC’s offices were located and near where Weinstein was residing.
21 1) First Assault on December 7, 2010
22 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief states that
23 on or around December 7, 2010 De La Huerta encountered WEINSTEIN at a lounge called
24 “Top of the Standard” (aka Boom Boom Room) on the High Line located in Manhattan, New
25 York, because both were attending a party at that location celebrating the opening of a movie
26 called Blue Valentine. De La Huerta and WEINSTEIN were neighbors who did recognize each
27 other occasionally – as at grocery stores or cafes as well as having a prior employee/employer
28 relationship from 1999.
-4-
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
Figure 1 – Photos of WEINSTEIN and De La Huerta at Blue Valentine afterparty December 7,
16 2010.
17 11. WEINSTEIN offered De La Huerta a ride home to Tribeca which De La Huerta
18 agreed to. On the way to De La Huerta’s home, WEINSTEIN continuously pressured De La
19 Huerta to have a drink with him. Upon reaching De La Huerta’s home, WEINSTEIN insisted on
20 coming up to De La Huerta’s apartment to avoid discussing business and personal matters in the
21 public lobby of De La Huerta’s apartment building. Once inside of De La Huerta’s apartment,
22 WEINSTEIN made warnings to De La Huerta about harm to her career if she did not submit to
23 sex, then forced himself on De La Huerta and raped De La Huerta. Defendant Weinstein taunted
24 Plaintiff by relaying that he would be calling her.
25 12. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Weinstein or an employee of TWC would then call
26 Plaintiff’s cellphone at least several times over the following two weeks. Defendant Weinstein
27 or the TWC employee would tell Plaintiff that he was waiting outside of her apartment building
28 in his vehicle or in the lobby of the building waiting for her. Plaintiff would avoid his calls, and
-5-
1 avoid returning to her home until she was notified that he had left the premises. Defendant
2 continued this behavior through the two weeks after raping Plaintiff.
3 2) Corroboration of First Assault
4 13. On information and belief as well as according to news reports, WEINSTEIN had
5 a protective program for his assaults which included seeking to have a photograph taken with
6 his prior victim, following any assault. When the October 5, 2017 report in the New York Times
7 by Jodi Kantor & Megan Twohey caused a furore about the assaults, WEINSTEIN purportedly
8 produced a number of such photographs to the board of directors of THE WEINSTEIN
9 COMPANY for the purpose of showing that these photographs would derail any criminal or
10 civil action against him. WEINSTEIN procured such a photograph with De La Huerta, one
11 week after the first rape:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Figure 2 – Photo of WEINSTEIN with De La Huerta on December 13, 2010
27
28
-6-
1
2 14. Tensor Law PC (“TLPC”) located and presented the December 7th, 2010
3 photographs to the NYPD to show the date of the first assault and to prove the veracity of De La
4 Huerta’s statements to the NYPD. TLPC located and presented the December 13th, 2010 photo
5 to the NYPD to prove that WEINSTEIN had developed a direct interaction with WEINSTEIN.
6 Further TLPC asserted that in the light of the revelation of WEINSTEIN’s defensive modus
7 operandi (obtaining public, post-assault photographs for defensive purposes), this provided
8 prima facie evidence of an active cover-up by WEINSTEIN tending to prove an assault from
9 which he believed he would need a defense. The December 13th photos are the only time these
10 two persons have been photographed together.
11
3) Second assault on December 23, 2010
12
14 shortly thereafter, on or around December 23, 2010, Plaintiff received a phone call from
15 Weinstein while she was at work doing a professional photoshoot with Mark Squires wherein
16 Weinstein again stated that he was waiting outside her building and would remain until she got
17 home. Plaintiff again decided to confront Weinstein to point out that she viewed this as stalking
18 and that he was to leave her alone. However, during the ride home, Plaintiff consumed a very
19 large quantity of alcohol out of fear and depression, thereby rendering herself unable to consent
20 to any disputed sexual encounter.
21 16. Plaintiff, by then barely able to stand, did confront Weinstein, again waiting at the
22 lobby of her home when she returned home. Plaintiff told Weinstein to leave, to which
23 Weinstein “hushed” her and insisted that they speak in a private place, promising that they
24 would be able to resolve this discussion in her apartment. On information and belief, at least one
25 witness has come forward who observed them arguing outside her apartment door. Weinstein
26 then forcibly entered the apartment without consent and again forced himself on Plaintiff by
27 performing unconsented vaginal intercourse through overpowering physical force. Weinstein
28
-7-
1 left immediately after he raped Plaintiff, leaving Plaintiff in a state of absolute shock,
2 humiliation, embarrassment, and pain, as well as losing consciousness because of progressive
3 absorption of the ingested alcohol. Following this confrontation and attack, however, Weinstein
4 ceased all direct contacts, personal calls, and calls by his office staff directed at Plaintiff as well
5 as ceasing all uninvited visits to her building.
6 4) Events at the Four Seasons Hotel Los Angeles in Beverly Hills January 14 and 15, 2011
7 17. Plaintiff believes and therefore alleges that in relation to the 11th Annual American
8 Film Institute 2010 Awards luncheon, held on January 14, 2011 in the driveway of the Four
9 Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills, just two days before the 68th Golden Globe Awards on January
10 16, 2011 (to be held at the Beverly Hilton), Harvey Weinstein occupied a room at the Four
11 Seasons Hotel on South Doheny Drive in Beverly Hills. The AFI Awards named De La
12 Huerta’s show “Boardwalk Empire” as one of the “Programs of the Year” and gave a “Special
13 Award” to The Weinstein Company’s “The King’s Speech.” Thus this critical business and
14 professional event coincidence brought De La Huerta and Weinstein back into proximity with
15 each other three weeks after the second rape.
16 18. On the afternoon of January 15, 2011 Harvey Weinstein attended the annual
17 British Academy of Television Arts (BAFTA) Los Angeles Awards Season 17th Annual Tea at
18 the Four Seasons Hotel Los Angeles at Beverly Hills. This was part of the annual three day
19 sequence of AFI on the first day, BAFTA on the second day and Golden Globes on the third day
20 which brought Harvey Weinstein to the Four Seasons annually. Of note, The Four Seasons is a
21 registered Creditor of The Weinstein Company in the pending Bankruptcy proceeding in United
22 States District Court of the District of Delaware 18-10601-MFW.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
Figure 3 - Harvey Weinstein at the Four Seasons Los Angeles at Beverly Hills on the afternoon of
16 January 15, 2011
17 19. On the same afternoon, Paz De La Huerta attended Day 2 of the Annual InStyle
18 Golden Globes Beauty Lounge at the Four Seasons Los Angeles at Beverly Hills on January 15,
19 2011.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 Figure 4 – Paz De La Huerta with actress Aimee Teegarden at the Four Seasons Los Angeles at
17 Beverly Hills on the afternoon of January 15, 2011.
19 on or about the afternoon of January 15, 2011, Weinstein was visiting the Four Seasons Hotel
20 having drinks with several associates in a lobby lounge following the BAFTA event and
21 observed De La Huerta and called her on her cell phone asking her at short distance to come to
22 join him where he was with several other individuals, to discuss their dispute.
23 21. Plaintiff notes that the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills was, at that time, on
24 public notice of recurrent sexual assaults performed by Harvey Weinstein at said Four Seasons
25 Hotel. Famously, on August 7, 2005 at a red carpet interview at the Comedy Central Roast of
26 Pamela Anderson at Sony Studios in Culver City, Natasha Leggero asked Courtney Love if she
27 had any advice for “a young girl moving to Hollywood.” Courtney Love answers: “I’ll get
28 libeled if I say it…If Harvey Weinstein invites you to a private party at the Four Seasons, don’t
-10-
1 go.” On information and belief, The Four Seasons was fully put on notice by this statement but
2 took no action to warn or protect any young women visitors to the hotel of the risks when any
3 such women visited while Harvey Weinstein was a guest. In fact, in order to promote the
4 business associated with Weinstein’s stays at the hotel, the Four Seasons actively assisted
5 Weinstein in his predatory behavior, as it collected large fees from the Weinstein Company.
6 22. Plaintiff alleges that because Weinstein stated in the call that he was in a public
7 place with other persons present with him. Therefore Plaintiff, who was angered by the call,
8 reasonably believed that this would provide a safe opportunity to confront Weinstein. In
9 agreeing to a meeting with Weinstein, she intended to confront him to demand that he leave her
10 alone and to call him to account for his assault on her. She believed that after the assault when
11 she tried to confront him in private at her building in Tribeca, that it would be safer to confront
12 him in the public, formal, and protective environment of the Four Seasons Hotel where she did
13 not imagine an attack could be made.
14 23. De La Huerta was nearby at the time of receiving the call, walk from her location
15 at the Four Seasons hotel to the location of Weinstein and his associates in a lobby lounge area.
16 Plaintiff informed Weinstein that she had subject matter to discuss with him. Almost
17 immediately, Weinstein excused himself from the group and did not return. Shortly thereafter, a
18 concierge of Defendant FOUR SEASONS HOTEL gave Plaintiff a note indicating that it was
19 from Weinstein, requesting her presence in his hotel room for a substantive discussion. Plaintiff
20 went to Weinstein’s room in hopes of accomplishing her intention of warning and confronting
21 Weinstein to stop the harassing phone calls, which he had that day resumed, and any further
22 uninvited visits to her building. Plaintiff alleges that Weinstein opened the door, wearing an
23 opened bathrobe thereby prominently exposing his penis to Plaintiff in a taunting manner.
24 Plaintiff also observed another woman undressed in the room and was then invited by Weinstein
25 to participate in a three party sexual encounter. Plaintiff told Defendant Weinstein to stop
26 stalking and harassing her and quickly left the vicinity of Weinstein’s room feeling
27 embarrassed, scared, shocked and humiliated. She noted that Weinstein appeared angered by her
28 rejection and denunciation.
-11-
1 24. The Golden Globe Awards then took place the following day, commencing at 5:00
2 pm on January 16, 2011, at the Beverly Hilton Hotel. During that event De La Huerta’s HBO
3 show – Boardwalk Empire won “Best TV Series – Drama” and in which the lead actor in
4 Boardwalk Empire Steven Buscemi won “Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series -
5 Drama” and in which Kelly Macdonald was nominated for Best Performance by an Actress in a
6 Supporting Role in a Series” and wherein The Weinstein Company’s Kings Speech won seven
7 awards. This was an extremely important professional event which De La Huerta attended. It
8 was immediately followed by the Relativity Media and The Weinstein Company 2011 Golden
9 Globes After Party which was attended by De La Huerta along with other Boardwalk Empire
10 cast members and also attended by Harvey Weinstein with his wife Georgina Chapman.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-12-
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 Figure 5 - Plaintiff De La Huerta and Defendant Harvey Weinstein at the Relativity Media and
The Weinstein Company 2011 Golden Globes After Party January 16, 2011.
22
23 25. During this party, in the small confines of the Beverly Hilton party, faced with
24 seeing Weinstein with his wife after being raped twice by him and suffering a humiliating
25 exposure of his genitals at the Four Seasons, hotel, De La Huerta experienced severe emotional
26 distress and commenced drinking very heavily. She left the afterparties at the Beverly Hilton
27 and attempted to attend an afterparty sponsored by GQ at the Chateau Marmont. She was
28 refused admittance and was filmed staggering and falling due to extreme inebriation. This video
-13-
1 was widely distributed in numerous online media on January 17, 2011 causing additional
2 distress. CBS News reported the video:
3 After the ceremony, the 26-year-old star of HBO's "Boardwalk Empire" got so
4 wasted she was rejected from a "GQ" party at Chateau Marmont, then proceeded
to hit the deck, rip her dress.
5
6 CBS News, January 17, 2011. This a modern token of the humiliation and shame that may be
7 heaped onto a woman raped by a powerful person, who is also shamed into not making any
8 accusation, - here converting from the Plaintiff what should have been a pinnacle day in her
9 acting career turning it instead into a emotionally crushing experience. Other media similarly
10 featured the video.
11
12 5) Retaliatory Career Destruction Undertaken by Weinstein for De La Huerta’s Accusations and
13 Rejections and Equitable Estoppel of Assertion of the Statute of Limitations
14
15 26. At the time of the attacks, Plaintiff was in the second season of filming for
16 Boardwalk Empire and was receiving widespread critical claim and popularity. This work
17 continued through 2011. De La Huerta alleges that the emotional disturbance of the assaults and
18 exposures led to ongoing emotional impacts affecting her behavior.
19 27. On information and belief, one year later, Weinstein again attended the AFI
20 Awards Luncheon at the Four Seasons Los Angeles at Beverly Hills the following year, on
21 January 14, 2012, and was possibly reminded of the confrontation with De La Huerta at the
22 Four Seasons the year before. There Weinstein was photographed conversing with Martin
23 Scorsese, Director & Executive Producer of Boardwalk Empire in an image placed prominently
24 in the New York Times. A public announcement of De La Huerta’s termination off of
25 Boardwalk Empire was released three weeks later on February 6, 2012. De La Huerta
26 reasonably inferred and herein alleges that the close timing of this meeting of Weinstein with
27 Scorsese occurring just before her termination, led her to reasonably believe that Weinstein was
28 making good on threats to harm her career if she defied him.
-14-
1 28. Of note, following Courtney Love’s statement about Weinstein and the Four
2 Seasons in 2005 (see Paragraph 21above) she stated, in an October 14, 2017 tweet, that she was
3 “banned for life” by her talent agency CAA (Creative Artists Agency) for “speaking out against
4 #HarveyWeinstein #rape,” linking this tweet to her 2005 statement connecting Harvey
5 Weinstein, the Four Seasons, and sexual assaults.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Figure 6 – Martin Scorsese – Director & Executive Producer of Boardwalk Empire – converses
with Harvey Weinstein at the Four Seasons Los Angeles at Beverly Hills on January 14, 2012,
20 three weeks before the public announcement on February 6, 2012 of the abrupt non-renewal of
21 De La Huerta’s contract on Boardwalk Empire. New York Times, January 14, 2012.
29. Following the January 2012 event, De La Huerta’s contract for additional
22
episodes and seasons of Boardwalk Empire was not renewed, although no reason was ever given
23
by HBO for this discontinuation. On information and belief, Plaintiff here alleges that retaliatory
24
action by Weinstein played a critical role in the termination. Additionally, because Plaintiff
25
reasonably believed this was retaliation, she continued to be fearful of further career harm
26
throughout the film industry, if she proceeded with a lawsuit against Weinstein. She made no
27
28
-15-
1 further attempts to confront Weinstein and he did not initiate any further telephone contacts to
2 her.
3 30. Plaintiff alleges that she had feared to press any charges or file any lawsuits
4 against Weinstein and TWC, because of multiple and repeated statements and warnings made
5 by Weinstein to Plaintiff during this five week period that lack of cooperation on her part with
6 his advances would harm her career. Additionally, Plaintiff was warned by Weinstein that any
7 effort to take legal action against him would fail and would prompt him to interfere with her
8 future success and career as an actress. She additionally feared a confrontation with the Four
9 Seasons.
10 31. For the reasons set forth in the prior paragraphs, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
11 Harvey Weinstein, The Weinstein Company, Burton Way and Four Seasons are equitably
12 estopped from asserting the statute of limitations. Unlike an employer where a person can evade
13 future harms by changing employment, Weinstein’s pervasive role and impact in the film
14 industry and awards events left no means to escape or terminate the reach of Weinstein’s ability
15 to negatively influence her career. The Four Seasons similarly would defend its reputation from
16 accusation of permitting and fomenting serial sexual assaults on its property with
17 foreknowledge.
18
6) Endorsement by The Weinstein Company
19
21 the criminal and intentional acts performed by Harvey Weinstein were endorsed by the
22 Weinstein Company. The Weinstein Company funded the rooms that Defendant would commit
23 his lewd, forceful and unconsented act, and additionally participated in setting up meetings
24 between Defendant and Plaintiff, which asserted no business purpose, including attempting to
25 direct her to meet Weinstein at Plaintiff’s home.
27 prior to the numerous criminal acts performed by Weinstein, TWC’s executives, officers and
28
-16-
1 employees were equipped with actual knowledge of Weinstein’s repeated acts of sexual
2 misconduct with women. Further, TWC often aided and abetted Weinstein in the commission of
3 his sexual misconduct. For example, TWC provided that Weinstein’s secretary or assistant
4 could and did seek to arrange the “meetings” at Plaintiff’s apartment
5 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief finds that
6 prior allegations of sexual misconduct involving Weinstein, in which TWC was aware of, were
7 subject to nondisclosure agreements and/or confidential settlements. Therefore, the only
8 knowledge of the full scope of the lewd, criminal acts by Weinstein was held by TWC,
9 Weinstein and the victims of the criminal sexual acts. They were legally bound by the
10 agreement that disallowed any discussion about these reprehensible acts.
11
7. Further Contemporaneous Corroboration
12
13 35. At the time of these events, Plaintiff De La Huerta was also the writer, director,
14 producer and lead actress of her still unreleased film “Valley of Tears” which is a retelling of
15 Hans Christian Anderson’s “Red Shoes” which she had previously begun filming. At this time in
16 early 2011, De La Huerta added a scene to Valley of Tears in which she is raped, and directed
17 the filming of said scene in April of 2011, in order to show this from a woman’s perspective and
18 to attempt to use her cinematic art to work through the emotional trauma of Weinstein’s
19 assaults.
20
21 IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - ASSAULT

22 (As against HARVEY WEINSTEIN)
23 36. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein,
24 each and every allegation set forth above in this Complaint.
25 37. Defendant Harvey Weinstein intended to cause a harmful and offensive act with
26 Plaintiff when, just inside the door of a hotel room in Los Angeles, California he indecently
27
28
-17-
1 exposed his penis to Plaintiff on or around January 16, 2011 thereby performing an act that
2 would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
3 38. Plaintiff reasonably believed that she was about to be touched by Defendant in a
4 harmful and offensive manner given the previous occurrences of Defendant forcing himself on
5 Plaintiff thereby performing an unconsented act of sexual intercourse at two separate prior
6 incidents.
7 39. Plaintiff did not consent to the indecent exposure of Defendant’s penis.
8 40. Defendant’s conduct of indecent exposure was a substantial factor in causing
9 Plaintiff’s severe harm.
10
11 V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – SEXUAL BATTERY
12 (as against HARVEY WEINSTEIN)
14 each and every allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a first separate and distinct claim
15 for relief, Plaintiff complains against Defendant as follows:
16 42. California Civil Code §1708.5 provides as follows:
17 (a) A person commits a sexual battery who does any of the following:
18 (1) Acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with an
19 intimate part of another and a sexually offensive contact with that person
20 directly or indirectly results.
21 (2) Acts to cause a harmful or offensive contact with another by use of his or
22 her intimate part, and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly
23 or indirectly results.
24 (3) Acts to cause an imminent apprehension of the conduct described in
25 paragraph (1) or (2), and a sexually offensive contact with that person
26 directly or indirectly results.
27
28
-18-
1 (b) A person who commits a sexual battery upon another is liable to that person
2 for damages, including, but not limited to, general damages, special damages,
3 and punitive damages.
4 (c) The court in an action pursuant to this section may award equitable relief,
5 including, but not limited to, an injunction, costs, and any other relief the court
6 deems proper.
7 (d) For the purposes of this section “intimate part” means the sexual organ, anus,
8 groin, or buttocks of any person, or the breast of a female.
9 (e) The rights and remedies provided in this section are in addition to any other
10 rights and remedies provided by law.
11 (f) For purses of this section “offensive contact” means contact that offends a
12 reasonable sense of personal dignity.
13 43. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed the act of civil sexual battery in
14 violation of California Civil Code §1708.5, when, on or around December 7, 2010 and on or
15 around December 23rd, 2010, Defendant Weinstein willfully, maliciously, intentionally and
16 without the consent of Plaintiff subjected her to forceful, harmful and offensive touching of
17 Plaintiff’s body, including viciously raping Plaintiff by way of vaginal penetration, against her
18 will, without her consent, and in spite of her express objection.
19 44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has
20 suffered physical injury, severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, mental and
21 emotional distress and anxiety, all in an amount according to proof at trial.
22 45. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has
23 suffered economic harm and other consequential damages all in an amount according to proof at
24 trial.
25 46. The acts of Defendant, as alleged herein were willful, wanton, and malicious and
26 were intended to oppress and cause injury to Plaintiff. In light of the willful, wanton, malicious
27 and intentional conduct engaged in by Defendant, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive
28 damages.
-19-
1 VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
2 DISTRESS
3 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as against ALL Defendants)
6 48. This is an action for damages pursuant to the common law of the State of
7 California as mandated by the California Supreme Court in the decision of Rojo v. Kliger 52
8 Cal. 3d 65 (1990).
9 49. Defendant engaged in the extreme and outrageous conduct herein above alleged
10 with wanton and reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiff to suffer severe
11 emotional distress.
12 50. As a proximate result of the extreme and outrageous conduct engaged in by
13 defendant, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and extreme
14 emotional and physical distress all to her general damage in an amount according to proof at
15 trial.
16 51. As a proximate result of the wrongful actions of the Defendant, Plaintiff has
17 suffered harm, including but not limited to, lost earnings and other employment benefits, loss of
18 future employment benefits, humiliation, and emotional distress all in an amount to be proved at
19 trial but exceeding the minimum jurisdiction limits of this court.
20 52. The conduct of the Defendant in assault and sexual battery that gave Defendant the
21 real or apparent power to affect the Plaintiff who was particularly vulnerable to emotional
22 distress and that his conduct would likely result in harm due to mental distress.
23 53. The Defendant intended to cause the Plaintiff emotional distress.
24 54. The Defendant acted with reckless disregard of the probability that the Plaintiff
25 would suffer emotional distress, knowing that the Plaintiff was present when the conduct
26 occurred, and it was intended towards Plaintiff.
27 55. The Plaintiff subsequently suffered severe emotional distress that was substantial,
28 and that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to bear, including but not
-20-
1 limited to suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock,
2 humiliation, and shame.
3 56. The conduct of Defendant was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff’s severe
4 emotional distress.
6 VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
7 (As Against Defendant The Weinstein Company)
10 58. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant TWC is responsible for the acts of Weinstein
11 because TWC hired and supervised Weinstein and Weinstein was acting as the agent of TWC
12 when he committed the acts mentioned above.
13 59. Upon information and belief Plaintiff alleges that Weinstein became unfit to
14 perform the work for which he was hired for because in his guise to lure in potential actresses he
15 would conduct himself in a sexual manner which was criminal. The Weinstein Company was
16 aware – through statements such as the comment of Courtney Love cited above at paragraph 21
17 – that when it rented out rooms for Harvey Weinstein at the Four Seasons Hotel Los Angeles at
18 Beverly Hills, that it was providing a location for serial assaults and acts of humiliation toward
19 female professionals in the film industry.
20 60. Upon information and belief, TWC knew or should have known that Harvey
21 Weinstein was unfit and that his unfitness created a particular risk to others. TWC’s Board of
22 Directors possessed knowledge of Weinstein’s propensity to engage in sexual misconduct
23 during the course of his employment under the supervision of TWC. The Board of Directors of
24 TWC, at all relevant times, maintained a supervisory position over Weinstein.
25 61. Upon such information and belief Plaintiff alleges that Weinstein’s unfitness
26 harmed the Plaintiff by resulting in unconsented to sexual advances, indecent exposure, and
27 rape.
28
-21-
1 62. TWC’s negligence in supervision and retention of Weinstein as an employee of the
2 company was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. By failing to terminate Weinstein
3 upon the first time of learning of Weinstein’s criminal acts, TWC was the substantial factor
4 allowing Weinstein’s acts to continue without repercussions.
5 VIII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – PREMISES LIABILITY NEGLIGENCE
6 (as Against Defendants The Four Seasons, Burton Way, and The Weinstein Company)
9 64. Plaintiff is informed and believes and so therefore does allege, that BURTON
10 WAY and FOUR SEASONS LTD owned, managed, leased or controlled the FOUR SEASONS
11 BEVERLY HILLS and rented out rooms to THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY at lease one of
12 which was occupied from time to time by HARVEY WEINSTEIN.
13 65. Plaintiff is informed and believes and so therefore does allege that DEFENDANTS
14 BURTON WAY, FOUR SEASONS LTD and THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY were negligent
15 in the use of the FOUR SEASONS LOS ANGELES AT BEVERLY HILLS in that they had a
16 duty to use reasonable care to protect their patrons and guests from another person’s criminal
17 conduct on its property to which they could reasonably anticipate the conduct. They are required
18 to take steps to protect persons such as PAZ DE LA HUERTA by warning of conditions they
19 knew to exist, that pose a danger of harm to patrons and guests and invitees.
20 66. Defendants BURTON WAYS, FOUR SEASONS LTD, THE WEINSTEIN
21 COMPANY demonstrated severe malice through their disregard for the harm and humiliation of
22 multiple women over multiple years. Choosing profits over their responsibilities as innkeepers
23 and business persons, even participating and knowingly aiding HARVEY WEINSTEIN in his
24 actions. They equally demonstrated severe oppression in their reckless disregard for the harms
25 and humiliations being inflicted on their guests, visitor and invitees. For these reasons, these
26 Defendants, and each of them should be subject to an award of punitive damages.
27 67. Plaintiff is informed and believes and so therefore does allege that Paz De La
28 Huerta was harmed at the FOUR SEASONS LOS ANGELES AT BEVERLY HILLS and that
-22-
1 negligence on the part of BURTON WAYS, FOUR SEASONS LTD, THE WEINSTEIN
2 COMPANY and each of them was a substantial factor in causing DE LA HUERTA’s harm.
3 These entities were aware that Harvey Weinstein habitually used the FOUR SEASONS LOS
4 ANGELES AT BEVERLY HILLS to engage in the sexual assault and sexual humiliation of
5 women. The FOUR SEASONS LOS ANGELES AT BEVERLY HILLS anticipated the conduct
6 of HARVEY WEINSTEIN by his use of the concierge staff to invite and direct women to
7 HARVEY WEINSTEINS’s rented room at the hotel where they could reasonably anticipate that
8 he was to engage in rape, molestation, sexual assault and sexual humiliation of various women
9 on a habitual basis. The FOUR SEASONS LOS ANGELES AT BEVERLY HILLS knew that
10 others, such as Courtney Love had taken on a personal risk of being sued for attempting to warn
11 women who were potential guests at the FOUR SEASONS LOS ANGELES AT BEVERLY
12 HILLS, yet these owners, managers, and lessors made no adequate and reasonable efforts
13 themselves to investigate, to warn, and to prevent the commission of additional, such rapes,
14 assaults and humiliation.
15 IX. DAMAGES
16 68. On information and belief, the financial harm of being terminated off of
17 Boardwalk Empire constituted a loss of income and loss of future work valued at $5 million.
18 The termination occurred while De La Huerta was receiving wide spread acclaim for her role in
19 that series. Whether the termination was a result of a retaliatory act by WEINSTEIN or whether
20 the termination was due to psychological damage and deterioration suffered and publicly
21 demonstrated by De La Huerta commencing in January of 2011 in consequence of the
22 interaction with Weinstein, these constitute a basis for determining the value of damages from
23 suffered by De La Huerta through the actions of these DEFENDANTS.
24 69. In addition, although De La Huerta was injured on the set of “Nurse” – a Lionsgate
25 production – in 2011, California courts found that the subsequent substantial collapse of her film
26 career was not due to the Lionsgate injury. Therefore, De La Huerta will looked to WEINSTEIN
27 for the substantial cause of these career harms which she has valued at $55 million in her action
28 against Lionsgate.
-23-
1 X. CONCLUSION
2 70. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff seeks a finding of liability against
3 HARVEY WEINSTEIN, THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY, BURTON WAY and FOUR
4 SEASONS HOTELS and seeks damages in amount subject to proof at trial.
5 XI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
6 71. General damages in an amount to be shown according to proof at the time of trial.
7 72. Special damage including medical and psychological care expenses in an amount
8 to be shown according to proof at the time of trial.
9 73. Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an
10 example of Defendant.
11 74. Cost of Suit.
12 75. Such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper.
13 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
14 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this action.
15
16 Date: November 12, 2018
17
18
19
20
21
22 TENSOR LAW PC
23 Aaron G. Filler, Esq.

Chanel Katiraie, Esq.
24 TENSOR LAW PC
2716 Ocean Park Blvd, Suite 1060
25 Santa Monica, CA 90405
26 Phone: (310) 450-9689
Fax: (310) 496-3176
27 afiller@tensorlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Paz De La Huerta
28
-24-

Paz de La Huerta V Weinstein

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paz de La Huerta V Weinstein

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 AARON G. FILLER, Esq.

12 HARVEY WEINSTEIN, an individual;

22 Action Filed: November 12, 2018

12 VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION .............................................................. 21

23 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24 1. Plaintiff, Paz De La Huerta (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) is and at all times

27 New York, State of New York.

7 California, thereby subjecting him to general jurisdiction in the State of California.

12 of California and is therefore subject to general jurisdiction in the State of California.

13 4. Defendant BURTON WAY HOTELS, LTD, is a California Limited Partnership of

2 herein was committed in this county.

13 III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

21 1) First Assault on December 7, 2010

23 on or around December 7, 2010 De La Huerta encountered WEINSTEIN at a lounge called

27 other occasionally – as at grocery stores or cafes as well as having a prior employee/employer

28 relationship from 1999.

17 11. WEINSTEIN offered De La Huerta a ride home to Tribeca which De La Huerta

18 agreed to. On the way to De La Huerta’s home, WEINSTEIN continuously pressured De La

21 public lobby of De La Huerta’s apartment building. Once inside of De La Huerta’s apartment,

24 Plaintiff by relaying that he would be calling her.

3 2) Corroboration of First Assault

8 produced a number of such photographs to the board of directors of THE WEINSTEIN

11 week after the first rape:

10 two persons have been photographed together.

2 humiliation, embarrassment, and pain, as well as losing consciousness because of progressive

5 as ceasing all uninvited visits to her building.

15 each other three weeks after the second rape.

22 States District Court of the District of Delaware 18-10601-MFW.

17 Beverly Hills on the afternoon of January 15, 2011.

13 not imagine an attack could be made.

28 rejection and denunciation.

2 distress. CBS News reported the video:

10 featured the video.

12 5) Retaliatory Career Destruction Undertaken by Weinstein for De La Huerta’s Accusations and

13 Rejections and Equitable Estoppel of Assertion of the Statute of Limitations

18 exposures led to ongoing emotional impacts affecting her behavior.

24 in the New York Times. A public announcement of De La Huerta’s termination off of

28 making good on threats to harm her career if she defied him.

5 Weinstein, the Four Seasons, and sexual assaults.

4 could and did seek to arrange the “meetings” at Plaintiff’s apartment

7 subject to nondisclosure agreements and/or confidential settlements. Therefore, the only

10 agreement that disallowed any discussion about these reprehensible acts.

21 IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - ASSAULT

2 would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity.

8 40. Defendant’s conduct of indecent exposure was a substantial factor in causing

9 Plaintiff’s severe harm.

11 V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – SEXUAL BATTERY

12 (as against HARVEY WEINSTEIN)

15 for relief, Plaintiff complains against Defendant as follows:

16 42. California Civil Code §1708.5 provides as follows:

20 directly or indirectly results.

24 (3) Acts to cause an imminent apprehension of the conduct described in

26 directly or indirectly results.

3 and punitive damages.

8 groin, or buttocks of any person, or the breast of a female.

10 rights and remedies provided by law.

12 reasonable sense of personal dignity.

18 will, without her consent, and in spite of her express objection.

21 emotional distress and anxiety, all in an amount according to proof at trial.

27 and intentional conduct engaged in by Defendant, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive

3 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as against ALL Defendants)

5 each and every allegation set forth above in this Complaint.

12 50. As a proximate result of the extreme and outrageous conduct engaged in by