Scarlett Johansson has responded to Disney for what the actress feels is a “misogynistic” response to her recent lawsuit filing against the studio. Johansson’s primary lawyer John Berlinski today after Disney released an offensive response to the ongoing lawsuit by stating,
“After initially responding to this litigation with a misogynistic attack against Scarlett Johansson, Disney is now, predictably, trying to hide its misconduct in a confidential arbitration,”
“Why is Disney so afraid of litigating this case in public?”
“Because it knows that Marvel’s promises to give Black Widow a typical theatrical release ‘like its other films’ had everything to do with guaranteeing that Disney wouldn’t cannibalize box office receipts in order to boost Disney+ subscriptions,” Berlinski adds, knowing that Johansson’s contract provides for arbitration in the event of discrepancies. “Yet that is exactly what happened – and we look forward to presenting the overwhelming evidence that proves it.”
What prompted this strong response from Johansson’s legal team is Disney issued the following statement regarding its ongoing troubles with Johanson and her team. The motion filed in LA Superior Court on Friday by Disney’s outside lawyers Daniel Petrocelli, Leah Godesky and Tim Heafner of O’Melveny & Myers LL,
“Periwinkle agreed that all claims ‘arising out of, in connection with, or relating to’ Scarlett Johansson’s acting services for Black Widow would be submitted to confidential, binding arbitration in New York,”
“Whether Periwinkle’s claims against Disney fall within the scope of that agreement is not a close call: Periwinkle’s interference and inducement claims are premised on Periwinkle’s allegation that Marvel breached the contract’s requirement that any release of Black Widow includes a ‘wide theatrical release’ on ‘no less than 1,500 screens,”
“The plain and expansive language of the arbitration agreement easily encompasses Periwinkle’s Complaint.”
“In a futile effort to evade this unavoidable result (and generate publicity through a public filing), Periwinkle excluded Marvel as a party to this lawsuit––substituting instead its parent company Disney under contract-interference theories,” O’Melveny & Myers attorneys point out. “But longstanding principles do not permit such gamesmanship.”
