Weinstein can’t escape failed ‘Amityville’ sequel lawsuit

Despite claiming to have no involvement in a film that grossed just $724 at the box office, Harvey Weinstein won't be able to escape a lawsuit brought over its underlying rights, a district judge indicated Thursday.

Weinstein is being sued along with Miramax LLC, The Weinstein Company, and several others by Lesia Anson, the widow of novelist Jay Anson and the inheritor of his rights. Anson's best-selling novel "The Amityville Horror" was licensed in 1979 for a film of the same name, and the rights were later acquired by Dimension Films LLC for a 2005 sequel.

Dimension Films, which was acquired by Miramax after the initial sequel's production, released another sequel in 2017 titled "Amityville: Awakening." Production problems caused the film to miss its initial 2014 release date, and by the time it hit box offices, it played in 10 theaters nationwide, grossing just $742.

Anson's attorney, Marc Toberoff of Toberoff & Associates, argued the filmmakers didn't have the rights to make another sequel by the time the film was made. Toberoff argued advertising for the film, which he said was heavily derivative of the original 1979 movie and received near-universal panning from critics, emphasized it as a bona fide sequel of the original, damaging the credibility of the brand.

Weinstein sought to be dismissed as a defendant in the case, claiming he hadn't been involved in any stage of the film's development and production. The plaintiff failed to show why he was named as a defendant, Weinstein's attorneys said in support of his motion to dismiss, beyond noting his "tight control" over his former company Miramax.

Miramax separately made a similar argument, asking the judge to dismiss claims against the company because Anson failed to show evidence of Miramax's direct or indirect involvement in the film.

But U.S. District Judge George Wu declined to grant either party's motions to dismiss Thursday, reasoning Anson would only be expected to provide evidence of their involvement after the matter moved to discovery. The judge said he was also inclined to deny a request to toss infringement claims for violation of Canadian and Spanish copyright, brought over planned international releases of the film under similar reasoning.

Glen Rothstein, an entertainment attorney at Rothstein Law APC, said it's no surprise that either party sought to avoid time consuming and expensive discovery, particularly with foreign statutes that "have their own land mines and hurdles." He noted, however, the early stages of litigation tend to advantage plaintiffs, making pre-discovery dismissals hard to earn.

"But this is a copyright case, where prevailing parties are able to ask for fees as a way to disincentivize frivolous filings by plaintiffs," Rothstein said.

If the defendants feel Anson doesn't ultimately have a case, they could fight the case tooth and nail and collect on the back end, Rothstein said. But with Thursday's hearing dashing hopes of a quick exit, Rothstein said the defendants may simply opt to settle.

Though his decision at Thursday's hearing was tentative, Wu indicated he was unlikely to make any alterations in his final decision. Anson v. Weinstein, 17-cv-08360 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 11, 2017).

Toberoff did not respond to a request for comment, nor did attorneys for Weinstein and Miramax. A spokesperson for Lantern Capital, which acquired The Weinstein Company in May following its bankruptcy, also did not respond to request for comment Thursday.