New York judge Suzanne Adams has ruled that actress Julia Ormond’s lawsuit against Creative Artists Agency (CAA), Disney, and Miramax, alongside disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein, will move forward. The ruling, issued on Monday, allows Ormond's claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against the high-profile defendants to proceed, marking a crucial moment in the ongoing legal battles surrounding Weinstein's history of sexual misconduct.

Allegations of Breach of Fiduciary Duty by CAA

Ormond, known for her roles in Legends of the Fall, First Knight, and Sabrina, alleges that her former agents at CAA, Bryan Lourd, and Kevin Huvane, encouraged her to meet with Weinstein, which led to her being sexually assaulted. The lawsuit further claims that after the assault, Ormond’s agents discouraged her from reporting the incident to law enforcement, advising her that she might not be believed and that pursuing the matter could anger Weinstein, thereby damaging her career.

Judge Adams found that the allegations against CAA sufficiently suggested that the agency had prior knowledge, or at least reason to suspect, that Weinstein posed a potential risk to Ormond. This assertion, if proven, could constitute a breach of the agency’s fiduciary duties, which require agents to act in the best interests of their clients. The court pointed out that CAA representatives failed to warn Ormond about Weinstein's reputation while negotiating her first-look deal with Miramax, indicating a potential dereliction of duty.

In response, a CAA spokesperson asserted that the agency had no knowledge of Weinstein’s sexually abusive behavior until it became public decades later. They described the claim that CAA should have warned Ormond in 1995 as illogical, stating that the allegations defy common sense.

Claims Against Disney and Miramax

Ormond’s lawsuit also extends to Disney and Miramax, accusing the companies of negligent supervision and complicity in Weinstein’s misconduct. The court allowed these claims to proceed, dismissing Disney’s argument that it wasn’t responsible for Weinstein’s crimes since he wasn’t directly employed by the company.

The judge highlighted that Weinstein reported directly to Disney’s then-CEO Michael Eisner, who had delegated oversight of Weinstein to other Disney executives, including Jeffrey Katzenberg. The lawsuit alleges that these executives were negligent in their responsibilities, effectively allowing Weinstein’s predatory behavior to continue unchecked in order to maintain profitable dealings with Miramax.

Disney acquired Miramax in 1993, two years before the alleged assault on Ormond. Despite this, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Disney and Miramax bore responsibility for failing to supervise Weinstein adequately and prevent the assault.

The Legal Context: New York’s Adult Survivors Act

Ormond’s case has been brought under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which temporarily lifts the statute of limitations on claims involving sexual offenses for a one-year period. This legal provision has opened the door for many survivors to seek justice for assaults that occurred outside the typical time constraints for filing such claims.

Ormond’s lawsuit includes claims of sexual battery against Weinstein, alongside the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims against CAA, Disney, and Miramax. The case underscores the broader implications of how powerful individuals and institutions can be held accountable for their roles in enabling and covering up sexual misconduct.

This ruling marks a pivotal moment in the legal battles surrounding Harvey Weinstein and the broader #MeToo movement, highlighting the demand for systemic change in how entertainment industry power brokers are held accountable for their actions. It underscores the importance of fiduciary duty in the relationship between agents and their clients and the broader responsibility of corporations in supervising their executives.

This case will likely bring further scrutiny to the actions of CAA, Disney, and Miramax, potentially setting a precedent for how similar cases might be handled in the future. The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching consequences for the entertainment industry, particularly in how agencies and companies manage their relationships with powerful figures like Weinstein.