Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00221192DOJ Data Set 9Other

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00221192
Pages
3
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2008 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, (EPSTEIN), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files his reply to Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Motions To Dismiss, dated October 31, 2008, and states: Although Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2 through 7, are separate and distinct persons, in separate and distinct actions, with separate and distinct facts and circumstances pertaining to the claims each is attempting to allege, Plaintiffs' counsel has filed a broad brush, identical response to Defendant's motions to dismiss and for more definite statement which were filed in each of the actions. As pointed out in Defendant's previously fi

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2008 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, (EPSTEIN), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files his reply to Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Motions To Dismiss, dated October 31, 2008, and states: Although Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2 through 7, are separate and distinct persons, in separate and distinct actions, with separate and distinct facts and circumstances pertaining to the claims each is attempting to allege, Plaintiffs' counsel has filed a broad brush, identical response to Defendant's motions to dismiss and for more definite statement which were filed in each of the actions. As pointed out in Defendant's previously filed motions, there are factual distinctions in the actions and the allegations in Plaintiffs' attempts to assert the claims labeled as Count I — "Sexual Assault and Battery," and Count III - "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity In Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422." It is essential that each of the actions and the respective complaints filed therein are examined and treated as separate and distinct actions in deciding the respective legal issues and positions asserted. EFTA00221192 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2008 Page 2 of 3 Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein Page 2 As noted, Defendant's motion is directed to Count I and III of the respective complaints. Contrary to each Plaintiffs assertion, Defendant does not concede that Plaintiff has sufficiently plead the elements required to assert claims in Count I for "Sexual Assault and Battery" and in Count Ill pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§2422, and Defendant has not "misconstrued" the pleading standard formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In discussing Twomblv, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulation of the pleading specificity standard is that 'stating such a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest' the required element? In order to sufficiently allege the claim, the complaint is required to identify "facts that are suggestive enough to render [the element] plausible." Watts. 495 F.3d at 1296 (quoting Twomblv , 127 S.Ct. at 1965). As stated in Defendant's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has not met this standard requiring the pleading of facts to suggest the elements of the claims she is attempting to assert. In other words, Plaintiff is required to plead facts that suggest each element of the claim she is attempting to assert, as opposed to a generalized pleading. Accordingly, Defendant relies on the legal positions and argument in his motion, rather than reargue what has already been stated. Finally, the letter attached as an Exhibit to Plaintiffs response is not dispositive of the issue of whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim in Count III pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2422. EFTA00221193 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2008 Page 3 of 3 Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein Page 3 Wherefore, Defendant requests that this Court grant his motion to dismiss and for more definite statement directed to Plaintiffs Complaint. 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 of reco&identified on the f (lowing Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this Nrday of T11O 2008: Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein Es counser or Kaustilt—Jane Doe #7 Respectfully submitted, By: ROBE JR., ESQ. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00221194

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: "cmecfautosender®flsd.uscourts.gov" <cmecfautosender®flsd.uscourts.gov>

From: "cmecfautosender®flsd.uscourts.gov" <cmecfautosender®flsd.uscourts.gov> To: "flsd_cmecf notice®flsd.uscourts.gov" <flsd_cmecf notice®flsd.uscourts.gov> Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Doe I Epstein Notice (Other) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:41:01 +0000 Importance: Normal This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District Court Southern District

7p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: '

From: ' To:' Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Doe v. Epstein Response in Opposition to Motion Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:47:18 +0000 Importance: Normal This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CMIECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first io‘ing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Kudman, Tama on 3/12/2010 at 5:47 PM EST and

7p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

7p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: '

From: ' II < > To:' , Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Doe I Epstein Motion for Leave to File Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:49:57 +0000 Importance: Normal This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Pike, Michael on 4/6/2010 at 9:49 AM EDT

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: "cmecfautosender®flsd.uscourts.gov" <[email protected]>

From: "cmecfautosender®flsd.uscourts.gov" <[email protected]> To: "flsd_cmecf [email protected]" <flsd_cmecf notice®flsd.uscourts.gov> Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Doe No. 5 1 Epstein Motion for Summary Judgment Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 21:21:04 +0000 Importance: Normal This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District Court

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 05:19/2009 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS CO-COUNSEL LEWIS TEIN, P.L. hereby moves for leave to withdraw as co-counsel for defendant Jeffrey Epstein, stating as follows: 1. On December 30, 2008, Lewis Tein filed its notice of withdrawal as counsel for Mr. Epstein [DE 53], noting that two other law firms who previously entered their appearance on Mr. Epstein's behalf would remain as co-counsel. 2. We have since learned through discussions with the Clerk of Court that absent a formal order of withdrawal by this Court, Lewis Tein will continue to be listed as counsel for Mr. Epstein on the CM/ECF. 3. Accordingly, Lewis Tein respectfully requests that this Court enter an order allowing it to withdraw as counsel for Mr. Epstein. Lewis 'reins.

3p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.