Lisa Bloom, David Boies Ask Court to Dismiss Rose McGowan's Racketeering Lawsuit

"This action is a prime example of misuse of civil RICO," argues Lisa Bloom's attorney in a filing.
Laurent Viteur/WireImage

Attorneys Lisa Bloom and David Boies are asking a California federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit from Rose McGowan that claims they and other Harvey Weinstein "fixers" violated racketeering laws in an effort to make sure she didn't include her claim that the producer raped her in her memoir Brave.

The actress in October sued Weinstein, Boies, Bloom and private intelligence agency Black Cube for allegedly engaging in a "diabolical and illegal" effort to silence her.

Each of the attorneys on Friday filed a motion to dismiss McGowan's complaint. 

Bloom argues McGowan can't show a pattern of racketeering activity and failed to sufficiently allege Bloom's role in the "Weinstein-Protection Enterprise."

"This action is a prime example of misuse of civil RICO by an overreaching plaintiff who seeks to gain leverage by invoking the extraordinary remedy Congress enacted to combat organized crime," writes Bloom's lawyer Eric George in the motion. "The Complaint shoehorns myriad unrelated and unsupported claims against numerous individuals together under the umbrella of civil RICO. Plaintiff's attempt to fit dozens of square pegs into a single round hole fails, and the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice."

George argues his client had nothing to do with hiring the Black Cube investigators, whose conduct is central to the complaint. He also argues that the only damage McGowan claimed was an injury to her professional image, which he says occurred because she cancelled her book tour "based on a suspicion that Weinstein had placed hecklers at her events." (Read Bloom's full motion here.)

Meanwhile, Boies admits his firm hired Black Cube, but maintains that they were assured in writing that the investigators' techniques were legal. His attorney, Janet Levine, also argues McGowan's claims fail to meet the RICO standards and that she lacks standing to bring such a claim because she hasn't sufficiently alleged an injury arising from the purported racketeering.

"[S]he neither alleges any facts demonstrating how any of these purported 'concrete economic losses' were directly caused by the racketeering conduct she alleges, nor does she offer facts showing how BSF lawyers providing the discrete professional service for a long-time client of engaging private investigators on his behalf somehow engaged in 'racketeering' or other actionable behavior," writes Levine. (Read Boies' full motion here.)

Both attorneys argue that McGowan's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress also fail because they were filed after the statute of limitations expired. 

A hearing on the motions is currently set for May 11.