Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00222892DOJ Data Set 9Other

Case 9:09 v-80469-KAM

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00222892
Pages
3
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Case 9:09 v-80469-KAM Document 37-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II, -against- JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ET ANO., Defendant(s). STATE OF NEW YORK ) s.s : COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) Plaintiff(s), CASE NO. 09-08469-CIV AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE JOSEPH SANCHEZ, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an employee of KEATING & WALKER ATTORNEY SERVICE, INC., is over the age of eighteen years and is not a party to the action. That on the 14th day of April, 2009, at approximately 8:43 p.m., deponent attem ted to serve a true co s of the Summons in a Civil Action and aint upon ew York, New York 10065. I asked the Doorman to call the apartment o via the lobby phone. The Doorman claimed that out of town. That on the 20th day of April, 2009, at approximately 7:45 p.m., deponent attempted to serve a true copy of the Summons in a Civil Action and Complaint upon ew York, New York 10065. I asked the Door

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 9:09 v-80469-KAM Document 37-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II, -against- JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ET ANO., Defendant(s). STATE OF NEW YORK ) s.s : COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) Plaintiff(s), CASE NO. 09-08469-CIV AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE JOSEPH SANCHEZ, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an employee of KEATING & WALKER ATTORNEY SERVICE, INC., is over the age of eighteen years and is not a party to the action. That on the 14th day of April, 2009, at approximately 8:43 p.m., deponent attem ted to serve a true co s of the Summons in a Civil Action and aint upon ew York, New York 10065. I asked the Doorman to call the apartment o via the lobby phone. The Doorman claimed that out of town. That on the 20th day of April, 2009, at approximately 7:45 p.m., deponent attempted to serve a true copy of the Summons in a Civil Action and Complaint upon ew York, New York 10065. I asked the Doorman to call the apartment olIMMIEvia the lobby phone, but the Doorman claimed that is not home. That on the 21st day of April, 2009, at approximately 9:20 p.m., deponent attempted to serve a true copy of the Summons in a Civil Action and Complaint upon New York. New York 10065. I asked the Doorman to call the apartment o via the lobby phone, but the Doorman claimed that is out of town. That on the 24th day of April, 2009, at approximately 8:30 a.m., deponent attempted to serve a true copy of The Summons in a Civil Action and Complaint upon New York, New York 10065. I asked the Doorman to call the apartment of MINS via the lobby phone but the Doorman claimed that is out of town. IS (1) PLAINTIFF'S i EXHIBIT EFTA00222892 Case 9:09 -cv-80469-KAM Document 37-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 2 of 3 That on the 25th day of April, 2009, at approximately 10:30 a.m., deponent attempted to serve a true copy of The Summons in a Civil Action and Complaint upon New York, York 10065. I asked the Doorman to call the apartment of via the lobby phone. The Doorman claimed that is not home. I was unable to affix the aforementioned papers on the apartment door of the defendant because the Doorman would not allow me access to the building. That on the 25th day of April, 2009, at approximately 10:30 a.m., deponent served a true of the um upon New York, New York 10065 by personally delivering and leaving the same with who is a person of suitable age and discretion, at that address, the actual place of residence of the defendant. s an olive-skinned Hispanic male, approximately 50 years of age, is approximately 5 feet and 8 inches tall, weighs approximately 130 pounds, with silver hair and dark eyes. That on the 29th day of April, 2009, in accordance with the New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules, Section 308(4), and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(e)(1), copies of which are annexed, deponent served another copy of the foregoing upon the defendant by enclosing a true copy thereof in a securely sealed and postpaid wrapper with the words "PERSONAL and CONFIDENTIAL" written on the same, and not indicating on the outside that it is from an attorney, or concerns a legal matter, and depositing the same into an official depository maintained by the Government of the United States, City and State of New York, addressed as follows: New York, New York 10065 Sworn to before me this 29th day of April, 2009 W YORK in New Commission expires s 010 (2) e/EPH SANCHEZ EFTA00222893 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 37-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 3 of 3 Rule 4 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (1) A summons shall be served together with a copy of the complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for service of a summons and complaint within the time allowed under subdivision (m) and shall furnish the person effecting service with the necessary cop- ies of the summons and complaint (2) Service may be effected by any person who is not a party and who is at least 18 years of age. At the request of the plaintiff, however, the court may direct that service be effected by a United States marshal, deputy United States marshal, or other person or officer specially appointed by the court for that purpose. Such an appointment must be made when the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or is authorized to proceed as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. § 1916. (d) Waiver of Service; Duty to Save Costs of Service; Request to Waive. (1) A defendant who waives service of a sum- mons does not thereby waive any objection to the venue or to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant. 2 (2) An individual, corporation, or association that t is subject to service under subdivision (e), (1), or 00 and that receives notice of an action in the manner provided in this paragraph has a duty to avoid unnecessary costs of serving the summons. To avoid costs, the plaintiff may notify such a defen- dant of the commencement of the action and re- quest that the defendant waive service of a sum- mons. The notice and request (A) shall be in writing and shall be addressed directly to the defendant, if an individual, or else to an officer or managing or general agent (or other agent authorized by appointment or law to receive service of process) of a defendant subject to service under subdivision (h); (B) shall be dispatched through first-class mail or other reliable means; (C) shall be accompanied by a copy of the complaint and shall identify the court in which it has been filed; (D) shall inform the defendant, by means of a text prescribed in an official form promulgated pursuant to Rule 84, of the consequences of com- pliance and of a failure to comply with the re- quest; (E) shall set forth the date on which the re- quest is sent; (F) shall allow the defendant a reasonable time to return the waiver, which tll be at least 30 days from the date on which the request is sent, or 60 days from that date if the defendant is addressed outside any judicial district of the Unit- ed States; and (G) shall provide the defendant with an extra copy of the notice and request, as well as a prepaid means of compliance in writing. If a defendant located within the United States fails to comply with a request for waiver made by a plaintiff located within the United States, the court shall impose the costa subsequently incurred in effecting service on the defendant unless good cause for the failure be shown. (3) A defendant that, before being served with process, timely returns a waiver so requested is not required to serve an answer to the complaint until 60 days after the date on which the request for waiver of service was sent, or 90 days after that date if the defendant was addressed outside any judicial district of the United States. (4) When the plaintiff files a waiver of service with the court, the action shall proceed, except as provided in paragraph (3), as if a summons and complaint had been served at the time of filing the waiver, and no proof of service shall be required. (5) The costa to be imposed on a defendant under paragraph (2) for failure to comply with a request to waive service of a summons shall include the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service under subdivision (e r', (f), or (h), together with the costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee, of any motion required to collect the costs of service. (0 Service Upon Individuals Within a Judicial District of the United States. Unless otherwise provided by federal law, service upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed, other than an infant or an incompetent person, may be effected in any judicial district of the United States: (1) pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located, or in which service is effected, for the service of a summons upon the defendant in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of the State; or (2) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally or by leaving copies thereof at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process. (1) Service Upon Individuals in a Foreign Coun- try. Unless otherwise provided by federal law, ser- vice upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed, other than an infant or an incompetent person, may be effected in a place not within any judicial district of the United States: (1) by any internationally agreed means reason- ably calculated to give notice, such as those means Complete Annotation Materials, an Title 28 U.S.C.A. 38 EFTA00222894

Related Documents (6)

OtherUnknown

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support Of Iler Objections to tnsealinu Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue EFTA00074964 Ca_QatIgt24743tictoWneDbtOrfiefiVIMOXIle?BOWERKVaffizte12401 22 Introduction This Court asked the parties to brief three issues: "(a) the weight of presumption of public access that should be afforded to an item, (b) the identification and weight of any countervailing interests supporting continued sealing/redaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item." DE 1044 at 1. Plaintiff and the Miami Herald's responses improperly afford the highest level of presumption to discovery dispute documents, deny that any co

40p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Westlaw.

Westlaw. Pagel 749 F.3d 999, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1270 (Cite as: 749 F.3d 999) H United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Jane DOE NO. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, 1. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Roy Black, Martin G. Weinberg, Jeffrey Epstein, Intervenors-Appellants. No. 13-12923. April 18, 2014. Background: Alleged minor victims of federal sex crimes brought action against the United States alleging violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act ( CVRA) re- lated to the United States Attorney Office's execution of non-prosecution agree- ment with alleged perpetrator. After the victims moved for disclosure of corres- pondence concerning the non-prosecution agreement, the alleged perpetrator and his criminal defense attorneys intervened to assert privilege to prevent the disclos- ure of their plea negotiations. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Court, No. 9:08-CV-80736-KAM, ordered disclosure. The inter- v

16p
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

Memorandum

Memorandum Subject Re: Operation Leap Year Date May 1, 2007 (Revised 9/13/07) (2nd Revision 2/19/08)' To From R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney First Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division MAUSA, Northern Region , Chief, Northern Region I. Introduction This memorandum seeks approval for the attached indictment char in Jeffrey Epstein, Min a/k/a' JEGE Inc., and Hyperion Air, Inc. The proposed indictment contains 60 counts and seeks the forfeiture of Epstein's Palm Beach home and two airplanes? The FBI has information regarding Epstein's whereabouts on May 16th and May 19th and they would like to arrest him on one of those dates. Epstein is considered an extremely high flight risk' and, from information we have received, a continued danger 'The second revision amends the Jane Doe numbering system to correspond with the most recent indictment. It also removes the references to the overt acts and substantive allegations related to each

53p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS During the hearing on August 12, 2011, the Court directed the proposed intervenors to file additional briefing on their argument that plea negotiations are privileged and not subject to discovery or use as evidence in these proceedings. Proposed intervenors submit the following memorandum of law, which is identical to Parts I and II of the memorandum of law submitted by proposed intervenor Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for a protective order and his opposition to the motions of the plaintiffs for production, use,

23p

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.