plaintiff ashley judd it's good to see you all i'd like to reserve three minutes for a bottle this case presents an important issue of st impression whether california civil code section fifty one nine which prohibits sexual harassment in business service or professional relationships provides ms judd and actor with a remedy to address quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliation by harvey weinstein with the time of the events in question was the most formidable an acclaimed and powerful film producer in hollywood the answer is yes the statute applies its plain language makes clear it applies broadly to sexual harassment in business or professional relationships and is the california supreme court has articulated by the including but not limited to language so we need to give out a fact and then we get in and the supreme court in united states in the ali case this court in the painting game case on the california supreme court's take the same approach the recognize that a legislature can specify examples in an abundance of caution and to remove any doubt that certain things or hear activities are covered by the statute and create the presumption that those activities are covered subsection f gives another presumption that that professions and businesses and services like those listed also get sort of a boost in terms of the interpretive approach  that cannot take away from the broad language of the statute business service or professional relationships and these are just relationships that including but not limited to and it would make the language of the opening paragraph redundant and suppose if we only look at the examples and things that are substantially similar i do think your honor we meet that as well because the the strand that we think you see among the examples is power relationship a leverage that the that here mr weinstein had over him his job in these sorts of relationships it's the classic power relationship that was abused here and if you look at the examples there are examples of situations where where the the person who's discriminating has power relationship in the ability to abuse it to sexually harass the plaintiff mr burgess i read it i'm not sure i read the statute the same way you do let me ask you i this is what you mean and i'll just tell you both for the benefit of both counsel and i read it i think to say all business and professional relationship the legislature was talking about recognizing that this kind of harassment doesn't just occur between coworkers  in house if you will so all business and professional relationship with this particular characteristic it does have to have this particular characteristic in by me to the statute you're describing that's a power differential i wonder if  if that for me perhaps a little bit more precise definition about this common characteristic that must be present is the ability to coworkers is the word leverage if i think  is all business and professional relationships that have that characteristic is that what you mean there that's certainly one of interpretation or that we believe is correct it's that coercive they have that the person who is discriminating has the power to either give something or hold it back and in sexual harassment laws are as is in this core knows that's one of the defining features it's an abuse of power and i think that coercion is another way to to to put what we were that's one of our points your honor that there is a fact alice is here in the district judge dismissed this as a matter of law at the motion to dismiss states where we've alleged that this was a longstanding ongoing professional relationship where couldn't sever her ties with our real weinstein at that time he was the gateway towards professional success for actors and so and the sag aftra brief makes this this point very well that it could severely have damaged his career so it was the kind of relationship that in the language of the statute at the time that was not easy to terminate and that that permit that language was taken out in the two thousand and eighteen amendment to make it even easier to bring these claims but i think you put your finger on it your honor that that it it's a fact dependent issue and here the general meetings that that general meeting that ms judd attended which he thought was attending at the peninsula hotel that turned into the discrimination in the retaliation was still overlord of the film industry and he kept kind of bringing this this deal that this mock the one she would see him in other circumstances so if this isn't covered by statute that broadly speaks of professional and business relationships and one of the biggest industries in california where it with a history of abuse by people in power with respect to young actor sexual taking advantage of people in a sexual way then it would make no sense the statue was  let me go back to your very beginning why is this a case of general importance and wide ranging impact i'm going back but i'm also going forward because in my mind it legislature did say that it was wanted to clarify that that these that the director and producer and other persons were covered all along and so it it articulated it expressly to create that presumption that i mentioned right so important to misjudge because under the district court's interpretation she would be deprived of the protection of the statute no place you're absolutely correct in these things you're important to every single litigators and i really not only say that but i  began really in october two thousand and seventeen and ms judd was one of the st women who came out and went on the public record and revealed that mr weinstein's longstanding wrongdoing and at that point she learned when peter jackson did an interview that mr weinstein had retaliated against her so she didn't know she had a retaliation claim until and in in we believe that there are other women in the union representing actors and media artist sag aftra agrees with us that there may well be many other women who find themselves in a similar position they now realize and learn that they were being their careers were being short circuited their business careers or professional careers because they had spurned improper sexual advances and were being retaliated against so we believe there's another group out there of individuals who would be deprived the protection of this statute unless it is interpreted the way we believe it should be and i should say you're on it on this clarification point because i didn't want to get to that the legislature acted in the wake of ms judd's revelations in the revelations from all of the other women who came for about mr weinstein and others and at the time the legislation was passed mr wein arguing in this case that the statute didn't apply and that's the kind of circumstance that the california supreme court in the carter case the california senate cites that the western security bank the say where there's a controversy the legislature weighs in and says we want to clarify we want to be specific he's they covered it insisted they say they want to clarify as opposed to modify they they did your honor in in fact the california senate brief cites ford at least four different places in the house excuse me the assembly committee analysis the floor analysis the senate committee analysis and floor analysis they said this clarifies existing law another place they say it almost certainly clarifies existing law so it's really the classic circumstance in that carter case that the california senate site really really i think captures at this was the legislature saying we want to make clear this has always applied but we're going to put it in the statute to make clear so we think that either way if we apply the two thousand and eighteen bill it wasn't a statute it's not retroactive because it's just clarifying and we go back to the original language the district judge found that the plain language commonsense common language of the propose that as the district court of as i was saying found that the commonsense understanding the plain language of a business and professional asian ship would capture clearly based on the plain language the relationship between misjudged an actor and a producer and a movie before in movies after their relationship and he kept haunting her with this encounter in their relationship a professional functions so i would say that the prior version of the statute on its face captures and covers this relationship then that the legislature has reinforced that by saying we want to clarify and put it in the statute and that's sort of you know recruit a gras that says this statute applies it's meant to protect individuals outside the workplace that are subjected to retaliation and discriminated against i had one other question it seems that this report rely on the preamble can you address that please yes your honor it's the un codified preamble that was originally put in by the senate or early on in the process and it was not included in the statute the california courts federal courts are very clear that a preamble you know for whatever it's worth that it's true for as far as it goes that the legislature was concerned about professional service provider and client relationships but as the lack drafting process went forward it was broadened to cover business service or professional relationships that un codified preamble can't defeat and in and nullify the express language of the statute and the cases are very clear on that and it would be counter to  to just basic principles of statutory construction so we don't think that the preamble has any effect on interpreting the statute again it's not an accurate but it doesn't purport to say this is the only thing we're going to cover in the statute and if i could reserve a certain professional relationships between certain persons and their clients has no effect on how the court interprets the statute doesn't exist in ten million nine hundred and sixty nine thousand and ninety seven but we should give great credence to  and did in the opening brief i mean there was a heading that said you know that this the statute was not limited to the enumerated relationships or even those that were substantially similar and argue that you know it was any or all so that interpretation reads in the words any and all and it reads out the words may exist and subsection f substantially similar the cases that  enforcement officer now our case we have the complete opposite the words any and all are not in the statute secondly the court in only rejected the argument that quote any other law enforcement officer close quote should be limited to obvious or as quote of the same nature as customs officers and excise officers again we have the inverse because here are statute th language of limitation because it requires application only to those who are substantially similar to those that are in numerator in the statute so trying to read out the limitations on the problem of interpretation big putting that's not limited to language planet is arguing essentially that how we determine whether or not a relationship is covered is by looking at whether there was harassing conduct i mean was there some course of conduct that they try to get the plaintiff to either submit to sexual harassment or not or be retaliated against or we're supposed to look at whether the relationship existed at the time or we're supposed to look at whether or not it was a relationship that was not easily terminated now that would  be complete lack of notice to most people in the state of california as to whether or not they were in a relationship that was governed by section fifty one point nine and i get when you say no your time is ticking and i really don't think that answers my question at all  i guess you'll use it time the way you want to but i did have a different question and just to remind you my question is why shouldn't we read the statute to include business and professional relationships that have this particular common element characteristic in all instances we won't see that common element and i think that's part of the problem and one of the examples that opponent disputed with us was when we talked about you know the parent down the street who does carp to think of somebody providing carpool service for your child another parent would be one of the relationships but what if you're single parents you can't do carpool you depend on that other parent and that other parent into a sexual relationship because that the business or the relations i'm sure i'm confident that would be the response to that particular example so it doesn't strike me as i am just talking about the universe of business or professional relationships that have this have to meet a common example particularly talk because we're talking about a statute that addresses sexual harassment the particular example a characteristic is the ability to coerce mr boutros is using the word leverage in order to  coerce someone i guess into into tolerating unacceptable offensive behavior that's my question for you why should we interpret it that way because if we're going to interpret it that way then we have to examine you know is there a potential for coercion in any given relationship and how do you determine ahead of time whether or not there's a potential for coercion in the relationship i think that's right you have to let him and this is why it goes to that question i've even estate appraiser so the statute would seem to apply whether or not you are put down a deposit if you can't say that it cannot easily terminate is a separate element of the statute so whether or not you can easily terminate can't determine whether or not it's one of the covered relationships i think that's was reading too much into it well  stature has to put you on notice of whether or not you're in a cover relationship it cannot be the case that someone who clearly is not in a substantially similar and what makes it substantially some i think that gets back to is it the coercive element or is it not but can we say that a teacher is substantially similar to a real estate appraiser or a doctor we would have a difference of opinion on that now we could look at the case where there was a certified nursing assistant who was deemed to court the trauma was substantially similar to a physician but not in all cases that had to be looked at actually because that would not automatically grieving described as being called general meeting in a different industry where i have not worked what's the difference between a general meeting in that industry and an informational interview up by a law firm that see what the difference is i also don't see what the difference would be if your neighbor's child asked one of you for some career vice which law school should i go to or what area of law might i be interested in practicing in or what firms have i look at for somebody who are already in law school that create a professional relationship certainly perhaps down the line you may be able to write a letter of recommendation or make some kind of you know recommendations or or get make a call to get somebody an interview but is that does that create a professional relationship to be but isn't there is such thing isn't there a very much a difference and again just as a judge kristen said i don't really kno industry but apparently according to the paper's personal relationships or extremely important i don't think there's any question that he was a major player in the industry at the time and i would think would be reasonable for her to think in there were have on no beyond notice that this man held substantial sway over her career it's am i wrong there but it would that would be true then of any director producer other influential apter investor any one of those persons could well it seems to me another way to get at this is that you know the person asking across the driveway doesn't have an existing relationship maybe in one of my lockers going to an information interview doesn't have an existing relationship either in the facts of this hypothetical you want to speak about it's not just a list of drop titles it's also a professional relationship so your stand that but in this case what we have is that yes she worked on a film that his company produced a year or two earlier but she also alleges she had no interaction with him when she did work on that all that professional relationship and this woman who movie is finished and completed and released she alleges encounter because that statement was made after allegedly made after the encounter and if it could have been said he would have as much impact if he said my brother has told me that she's a nightmare to work  o whether it's based on his personal knowledge allegedly or not i don't see how that tells you back in the hotel encounter are they in an existing relationship at that time well my that effect our analysis here i don't see how it does because the relationship has to be existing at the time of the harassment and that was bookended that's over that's over i think eric thank you california law is quite explicit that unless a statute or amendment states that it is retroactive it is not there is no such retroactivity language in the amendment what we have is a legislative analyst's opinion in tw of course could be we could be trumped by the state supreme court but but the circumstances in this case might be concerned about statute of limitations so if there's other people out there i don't know if there are but but the certification is not a short earlier question is well this isn't a case that is important beyond ms judge because we have a twenty eight team amendment which now clarifies that anyone who has been asked in that kind of i'm not aware of any cases alleging coverage under the statute brought against mr weinstein for any conduct of his prior to two thousand and eighteen it would expect that given that the allegations by general allegations were being made public against mr weinstein and we haven't seen any i don't have anything further i just want to clarify my question didn't go to and the allegations be limited to this particular defendant just just for clot for three minutes it's going to take three thank you very much and i all start with kristen's point because i do think our preference is for this court to decide this issue because the certification process and with the world as it is everything is sort of paused and we think that based on the statutory language as it existed before the amendment plus the clarification and the points that that we've been discussing in the court this court is amply able to decide the question and and reverse and i i want to go back to this question of coercion mr weinstein knew he needed need any more notice he knew what he was doing was wrong he knew that he had the power to the complaint alleges and it's well known is a modus operandi was to abuse his authority to be to be the gate keeper to be the ticket to fame in an academy award and as judge kristen points out this relationship wasn't over it wasn't he wasn't a neighbor or a newspaper boy when he told peter jackson and fran walsh that ms that ms job was a nightmare to work with and that he had had a bad experience it was about casting what became one of the most profitable and successful movie franchises of all time that was in the context and then retaliation is that is the core of our claim because that was what chris judd learned of in summer of two thousand and seventeen and on this business on the general meeting is that the sac brief really walks through this and talks about how these meetings are different and then say informational meeting with a law student because here this was a specific invitation weinstein to talk about her career as an actress i think and business people so it's an ongoing relationships are everything and so the strike general meetings can provide a launching pad for production hills future acting position is personal with others and so it's it's clearly the kind of professional relationship that should qualify under the statute with respect to the and it's coercion because it's difficult to terminate in particular here the sacrifice makes a point that it was extremely dangerous for an actor to terminate their relationship with mr weinstein and and on page thirteen may say refusing to engage with a powerful different but where there's a controversy which there was here and the legislature steps and even filed an amicus brief i think that's to entitle to sound some weight and some deference in the district court really kind of gave it the back of the hand and that was inconsistent with california law so for all these reasons we request that the court reverse this is that the motion to dismiss stage i think that that this ruling does have a chilling effect judge kristin on other women who think all of the statute doesn't apply and i'm not going to go for it so expeditious ruling and we greatly appreciate the court going for of the argument indicating that yes these relationships do on their face qualify and then the case can go forward on the facts and and we