A US federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by actress Rose McGowan alleging that Harvey Weinstein engaged in racketeering to silence her and derail her career before she accused him of rape.
Judge Otis D Wright II dismissed the suit on Monday because McGowan, who sacked her lawyers last month and was acting as her own attorney, failed to meet filing deadlines that had been extended for her.
The judge had dismantled much of McGowan's suit against the former movie mogul last year, but has now thrown it out entirely.
Its central claim, that Weinstein violated federal racketeering law, was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.
Weinstein spokesman Juda S Engelmayer said: "Out of the public glare, with proper time, legal work, evidence and facts, this is the way we believe these suits will ultimately all go. A chapter is put behind as Mr Weinstein keeps going forward to demonstrate the truth."
McGowan has not commented on the dismissal on social media.
The suit filed in 2019 in Los Angeles said that Weinstein, along with two of his former lawyers and an Israeli intelligence firm, conspired to defraud, smear and marginalise McGowan as she was preparing to name Weinstein during the run-up to the explosion of the #MeToo movement late in 2017.
In a different Los Angeles courtroom on Tuesday, a judge rejected a motion from Weinstein's lawyers to dismiss a criminal indictment of Weinstein for 11 counts of sexual assault.
Weinstein's lawyers had argued that an expert in "rape trauma syndrome" was improperly used by prosecutors in grand jury testimony.
He has pleaded not guilty to four counts of rape and seven other sexual assault counts. The former movie producer is awaiting trial. No date has been set.
The 69-year-old is serving a 23-year prison sentence after convictions of rape and sexual assault in New York.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here