Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM

Date

Unknown

Source

Reference

EFTA 00212861

Pages

Persons

Integrity

No Hash Available

Summary

Persons Referenced (3)

The Defendant United States Jeffrey Epstein

“... OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CI V- 80591 - KAM JANE DOE NO. 101, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWL OF ARGUMENTS THROUGH VII OF THE DEFENDANT...”

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure

Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.

Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CI V- 80591 - KAM JANE DOE NO. 101, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWL OF ARGUMENTS THROUGH VII OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DE29) Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby withdraws arguments I through VII as set forth in the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (FAC) [DE 29], dated May 26, 2009. Defendant withdraws his arguments contained subparagraphs A, B, C and Sections I (The Complaint Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Is Not A Minor), II (The FAC Must Be Dismissed Because The Defendant Has Not Been Convicted Of A Predicate Offense), III (Count One Of The FAC Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Please A Violation Of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)), IV (Count Two Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Plead A Violation Of 18 U.S.C. §2423(b)), V (Count Three Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Plead A Violation Of 18 U.S.C. § 2251, VI (Counts Four and Five Must Be Dismissed Because They Do Not Plead Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(1) Or 2252(a)(1), and VII (Count Six Must Be Dismissed Because 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g) Was Not Enacted Until 2006). Defendant will rely only on those arguments set forth in subparagraph D, on page 3, and Paragraph VIII (Any Surviving Count Should Be Merged Into A Single Count) of the EFTA00212861 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 2 of 2 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint Or, In The Alternative, For A More Definite Statement [DE 29) dated May 26, 2009. Counsel for De dant EPSTEIN Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel record ' ntified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on thiV ay of 2009 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted By: ROBERT D. ITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida B MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florid a BURMAN, CRITTON, arrrmR & COLEMAN (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00212862

Related Documents (6)

OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint and states: 1. Without knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 41h DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[fit would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege ba

OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/09/2009 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.: 08-CIV-80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, 1. Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. / PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby responds to the motion by defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") to stay this action until late 2010. The motion for a stay should be denied. Defendant has not carried his heavy burden of justifying a stay in the action. A stay pending resolution of a related criminal prosecution is proper only when "special circumstances so require in the interests of justice." United States 1. Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla., 23 F.3d 359, 364 (11th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations omitted). Of course, "The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need." Clinton I. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). To stay a civil action in light

14p

OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint and states: 1. Without knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege bas

OtherUnknown

Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM

Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 1 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves to dismiss or, alternatively, for a more definite statement of, the First Amended Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. RR. 12(b)(6) & 12(e) (2009); Loc. Rule 7.1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). In support, Defendant states: Pleading Standard & Summary of Argument The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 that explicitly incorporate, and thus necessarily require Plaintiff to prove that Defendant is guilty of violating, specific criminal prohibitions set forth in Title 18 of the U.S. Code. While the Supreme Court has held that every complain

36p

OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 07'16'2008 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 08-80232-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File Ex Parte and Under Seal, filed July 10, 2008. Defendant seeks to file a Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action under seal.' The Court has carefully considered the motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. As stated in the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida, "proceedings in the United States District Court are public and Court filings are matters of public record." S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon I Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).

18p

OtherUnknown