## Facts

- Ashley Judd, a professional actor early in her career, agreed to a “general” business breakfast meeting arranged by Harvey Weinstein, an influential film producer.
- When Judd arrived at the hotel, she was directed to Weinstein’s private room rather than a public meeting space.
- Judd alleged Weinstein made unwanted sexual advances, including requests that she watch him shower and allow him to massage her; she refused and left after a tense exchange.
- Judd alleged Weinstein later interfered with her prospective casting in a major film project by disparaging her to key decisionmakers, leading to her removal from consideration.
- In 2017, after public reporting about Weinstein’s alleged misconduct, Judd learned from a filmmaker interview that Weinstein’s statements had affected her casting prospects.
- Judd sued in 2018 and pursued, among other claims, sexual harassment under California Civil Code § 51.9 (as in effect at the time of the alleged conduct).
- The district court dismissed the § 51.9 claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of a qualifying “business, service, or professional relationship,” and Judd appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged producer–actor “general business meeting” plausibly constituted a “business, service, or professional relationship” covered by California Civil Code § 51.9’s “substantially similar” catchall provision.
2. Whether dismissal at the pleading stage was proper where the allegations described a significant authority imbalance enabling professional harm.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Judd’s § 51.9 claim and remanded.
- The court held the alleged relationship plausibly fell within § 51.9 because it was “substantially similar” to the statute’s enumerated relationships.
- The court concluded the allegations supported a substantial authority imbalance: Weinstein’s industry position gave him leverage over Judd’s career opportunities, and ending the relationship could impose tangible professional hardship.
- The court rejected arguments that entertainment-industry networking is categorically outside § 51.9, that power can sometimes run the other way, or that no qualifying relationship existed at the time of the meeting.
- The court declined to decide at the pleading stage whether the relationship should instead be treated as an employment relationship outside § 51.9, characterizing that question as fact-bound.

## Legal Principles

- California Civil Code § 51.9 extends beyond listed professional relationships to other “business, service, or professional” relationships that are “substantially similar.”
- Substantial similarity under § 51.9 turns on functional characteristics—especially whether one party’s position of authority permits coercion or leverage over the other—rather than formal labels.
- A pre-contract or informal professional meeting may qualify under § 51.9 when the defendant’s gatekeeping power plausibly creates an authority imbalance and risk of professional retaliation.
- On a motion to dismiss, allegations describing such a power-based relationship and unwanted sexual advances must be taken as true and assessed for plausibility, not weighed as competing factual characterizations.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that allegations of sexual harassment during a producer-arranged business meeting plausibly stated a claim under California Civil Code § 51.9 because the producer–actor relationship, as alleged, involved an authority imbalance substantially similar to relationships covered by the statute, requiring reversal of the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.


Judd v. Weinstein, 967 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2020)