W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A.

W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 1400 250 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE SOUTH WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401.5056 TELEPHONE (561)655-4777 PAX (561)2354691 October 19, 2017 Via eCourtesy The Honorable Rodney Smith Dade County Courthouse 73 West Flagler Street Courtroom DCC1401 Miami, FL 33130 RE: Jean-Luc Brunel, individually and MCI Model & Talent Miami, LLC vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Tyler McDonald, Tyler McDonald D/B/A/ YLORG Case No.: 14-21348 CA 01 Dear Judge Smith: Please find enclosed a courtesy copy of Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's, Response to Motion for Ruling on Service of Process on Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein without a Hearing. Because the Plaintiffs attorney, Mr. Titone, is asking by way of his motion that you rule on his motion without a hearing, we are concerned that Mr. Titone may provide his motion to you directly. We are very much opposed to Mr. Titone's motion and therefore we have filed with the Clerk the attached response. Thank you very much for your consideration of this situation. Very truly yours, W. CIS BRE JR., ESQUIRE WCB/msk Enclosure cc: Mr. Joseph Titone, Esq. EFTA00788364 • Filing # 62990957 E-Filed 10/18/2017 12:26:18 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-21348-CA-01 JEAN-LUC BRUNEL, individually, and MC2 MODEL & TALENT MIAMI, LLC. Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, TYLER MCDONALD, TYLER MCDONALD D/B/A/ YLORO Defendants. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RULING ON SERVICE OF PROCESS ON DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN WITH ATTACHED ORDER COMES NOW, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, and files his response to Plaintiffs Motion for Ruling on Service of Process on Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, Without a Hearing, and states as follows: 1. The Amended Complaint in this mutter was filed January 2015. After almost three (3) years, the Plaintiff has never properly served Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. 2. On October 16, 2017, Plaintiff; Jean-Luc Brunel, through counsel, filed his second Motion for Ruling on Service of Process. This motion is essentially a re-file of Plaintiffs Motion for Ruling on Service of Process filed March 16, 2017. 3. The single major difference between the October 16, 2017 and March 6, 2017, filings is that Jean-Luc Brunel is now asking that the court grant his motion without a hearing. 4. Fully aware that Jeffiey Epstein opposes both motions for Ruling on Service of Process, counsel for Plaintiff has failed to inform the court of any opposition, thus implying by omission that the motions are agreed upon. Nothing could be further from the truth. EFTA00788365 Jean-Luc Brunel, et al. vs. Jeffrey Epstein, et al. Case No.: 14-21348-CA-01 Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Ruling on Service of Process on Jeffrey Epstein 5. In response to Plaintiffs prior Motion for Ruling on Service of Process Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, filed his Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Ruling on Service of Process. Mr. Epstein maintains his prior positions with regard to Plaintiffs failure to properly serve him in what is now 2 years and 10 months after the filing of Plaintiffs amended complaint. A copy of this Memorandum is attached as Exhibit A. In the seven months that have passed since Mr. Epstein filed his Memorandum in Opposition, Plaintiff has never even attempted to set his motion for hearing. 6. Also in response to Plaintiffs prior Motion for Ruling on Service of Process and browse the Plaintiff had failed to comply with this court's order of October 5, 2016, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, filed a Motion to Dismiss. As grounds for the Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Epstein relied on the express terms of this Court's October 5 Order that if service were not effected by the deadline specifically provided in the Order, the case was to be automatically dismissed and "no further order of this Court shall be necessary." Copies of this court's Order and Epstein's Motion to Dismiss are attached hereto as Exhibits B & C respectively. In the seven months that have passed since Mr. Epstein filed his Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff never once opposed the automatic dismissal of this case. 7. Incredibly, although Plaintiff was clearly informed on December 7, 2016, that the Plaintiffs last attempted service on November 17, 2016, was ineffective, Plaintiff has not made a single attempt to properly serve Mr. Bpstein since that failed November 17th attempt 8. The additional time to obtain proper service which was so graciously granted by this court has long since run. Rather than attempt to obtain proper service, the Plaintiff has filed two badly flawed motions in an attempt to mislead this court by claiming that proper service was obtained. The Plaintiff has even gone so far as to try to trick the court into ruling on these motions without hearing while not informing the court that there is opposition to the motions. EFTA00788366 Jean-Luc Brunel, et al. vs. Jeffrey Epstein, et al. Case No.: 14-21348-CA-01 Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Ruling on Service of Process on Jeffrey Epstein 9. Given the flagrant violations of Florida Statutes dealing with Service of Process, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court's Order of October 5, 2016, and Plaintiffs attempt to mislead the court by not informing the court that there was opposition to his motions and an outstanding Motion to Dismiss; this matter should be dismissed with prejudice. NOTE: This claim has already been dismissed by operation of this Court's Order of October 5, 2016. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, moves that the court dismiss, with prejudice, the claims of JEAN-LUC BRUNEL, individually, and MC2 MODEL & TALENT MIAMI, LLC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been electronically furnished via email and/or E-ftle on the Vi day of October, 2017 to Joe Tyrone, joctitone708@comcastmet. W. CHESTER BREWER, JR,Ill. Counsel for Epstein 250 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 (561) (561) E-Mail: By: /s/ W. Chester Brewer. Jr. W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 261858 EFTA00788367 r IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND POR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA JEAN-LUC BRUNEL, individually, and MC2 MODEL & TALENT MIAMI, LLC. Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, TYLER MCDONALD, TYLER MCDONALD D/B/A/ YLORO Defendants. CASE NO. 14-21348-CA-01 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RULING ON SERVICE OF PROCESS Having already once received this Court's indulgence for Plaintiffs' total disregard of Florida's procedural rules governing proper service of process and a 120-day extension of the time within which to effect service (effectively providing Plaintiffs with a 2-year service window), Plaintiffs again ignore Florida's jurisdictional prerequisites with their improper service attempt. They have disregarded this Court's new service deadline even after receiving prompt and repeated notice from the undersigned counsel of their improper and ineffective service attempt, and, now that the deadline has long passed, ask this Court to bless their misconduct for a second time. Service of process in this case is governed by Florida law. Florida Statutes Section 48.031 (I)(a) requires that service of original process be made by personally delivering a copy of the complaint, petition or other initial pleading or paper to the person to be served, or by leaving the copies at his or her usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person of their contents. Plaintiffs have not met a single one of these requirements in this case. When Plaintiffs first filed their complaint in August 2014, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was not even a party. Plaintiffs amended their complaint in January 2015 to assert two non-business counts against Mr. Epstein personally and caused a summons to be issued on February 9, 2015. In more than two years since Plaintiffs amended their complaint to include Mr. Epstein as a party, they have not made a single attempt to serve Mr. Epstein at his residence and usual place of abode in the United States Virgin Islands. Plaintiffs made a first half-hearted attempt on March 10, 2015 to serve Mr. Epstein in New York by leaving process with a woman at a location that was not Mr. Epstein's usual place of abode. The woman with whom the process was left was not a resident of New York, much less the location where service was attempted. Plaintiffs never even filed a Notice of Service of EFTA00788368 Process in connection with that failed attempt. The undersigned counsel promptly filed a motion to quash on behalf of Mr. Epstein in April 2015. Plaintiffs waited a full year to respond to that motion to quash and in their response, perhaps conceding that the attempted service was improper, asked this Court to disregard the procedural rules and order that Plaintiffs be permitted to serve Mr. Epstein through legal counsel (not the undersigned) not even of record in this case. After Plaintiffs failed to appear at the hearing that Plaintiffs themselves scheduled on Mr. Epstein's motion to quash, on July 28, 2016, this Court granted Mr. Epstein's motion to quash. Thereafter, Plaintiffs sought a rehearing, claiming that they did not realize that the hearing they themselves scheduled was proceeding, and on October 5, 2015, this court kindly granted Plaintiffs a full 120 additional days within which to properly servo Mr. Epstein or the matter would be dismissed without further order of this Court. Although Mr. Epstein's affidavit confirming the location of his residence in the U.S. Virgin Islands was filed as part of Mr. Epstein's original motion to quash, Plaintiffs ignored it. On November 17, 2016, Plaintiffs chose instead to make only their second service attempt in the 647 days since the original summons was issued to Mr. Epstein (and Plaintiffs' one and only service attempt during the period of extension granted by this Court) by leaving the summons and amended complaint with a non-party at an office address, which was clearly not Mr. Epstein's personal residence. Among the multitude of procedural defects in connection with that failed attempt, there is simply no legal authority for substitute service on Mr. Epstein in this matter by leaving process at an office address. Florida Statute Section 48.031 (2)(b) does allow substitute service under limited circumstances that are not applicable here. Under Section 48.031(2Xb) substitute service is permitted on a sole proprietorship by serving the person in charge of the business at the time of service if two prior attempts to serve the owner have been made at that place of business. Plaintiffs' single attempt at service within this rule is faulty in several respects. As it relates to Mr. Epstein, the amended complaint filed herein does not make claim against a business or fictitious entity. Mr. Epstein is named as a defendant in his individual capacity. Statues governing substitute service of process must be strictly construed and must be strictly complied with. See Hauser Vs. Schiff, Florida Appellate Court or FlaApp., 341 So.2d 531 and cases cited therein. Moreover, nowhere in any of the papers filed by Plaintiffs is it alleged that Mr. Epstein was the owner of a sole proprietorship that does business at the purported service address in St. Thomas. In fact, the causes of action asserted against Mr. Epstein in the amended complaint are for decidedly personal conduct by Mr. Epstein in his individual capacity unrelated to the operation by Mr. Epstein of any business at that office address, or anywhere else, for that matter. The complaint filed herein does not sound in any type of business related irregularity, and certainly, the acts complained of do not and did not arise out of business type activities. Florida Statute Section 48.031 (2)(b) is entirely inapplicable to the facts of this case. Even if, by some seetch of the imagination, section 48.031(2)(b) could be read to apply to service attempts on Mr. Epstein (which it cannot), nowhere in Plaintiffs' notice of service of process, the affidavits or the other documents filed by Plaintiffs is it alleged that two attempts to personally serve Mr. Epstein as owner had previously been made at this place of business. For that reason alone, service must also be found to be ineffective. EFTA00788369 The motion and notice filed by Plaintiffs assert that service is impossible on Little St. James, because this is a private island. Such assertion is absurd on its face, as service of process takes place routinely on private property. Little St. James is one of several residential says in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The mode of tmnsportatlon to such cays may be by boat rather than car, but certainly service of process is possible on any of them. Access to such cays by boat is common- place in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Little St. James is well-identified and easily located on any map. As is evident from the photograph of Little St James provided by Plaintiffs in connection with their motion, the Island features a sizable dock by which those arriving by boat may access the Island. That dock effectively serves as the front door to Little St. James, and as with any private residence, there was absolutely nothing preventing a process server from proceeding to the front door and inquiring of Mr. Epstein. Access to Little St. James was certainly available in this case and should have been attempted, but never was. As a further example of Plaintiffs' defective service, Florida Statute Section 48.031 (5) requires that a person serving process place on the first page of at least one of the processes served, the date and time of service, and his or her identification number and initials for all service of process. Nowhere in the notice or the documents attached thereto is there any information or indication that this requirement was complied with in Plaintiffs' failed and improper attempt at substitute service. In addition, Florida Statue Section 49.031 (1)(a) requires that the person serving the process inform the person served of the contents of that which is being served. Nowhere in Plaintiffs' motion, notice of service of process or the papers attached thereto is it indicated or stated that Plaintiffs complied with even this basic requirement. On December 7, 2016, the undersigned attorney informed the attorney for the Plaintiffs that the November 17, 2016 service attempt was improper and ineffective in that it did not comply with the statutory requirements of Florida Statutes Section 48.031. Copy of December 7, 2016 letter attached hereto as Exhibit A. Rather than attempt proper service even a single time before the expiration of the extended service window granted by the Court, Plaintiffs chose to do nothing until well after that window closed. Having received the letter from Mr. Epstein's counsel on December 7, 2016, a full two months before the expiration of the extension period, Plaintiffs certainly could have filed their Motion For Ruling On Service Of Process on Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, With Attached Order, before the expiration of the service window, so that if the Court found, as it should,. that Plaintiffs' service is defective, Plaintiffs would have had sufficient time before the window closed to effectuate service properly. Instead, and as they have done for the past two years, Plaintiffs chose to do nothing. Now they ask this Court to again indulge their flagrant disregard for Florida law and the express order of this Court and hold that proper service has been obtained, even though, to do so would fly in the face of Florida law. Because the attempted substitute service was inappropriate and ineffective in numerous respects, the Court should not grant Plaintiff's motion for ruling on service of process, and should rule that there has been no service of process on Jeffrey Epstein In this matter. Further, the Court should grant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss, which accompanies this Memorandum. EFTA00788370 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been electronically furnished via email and/or E-file on the 30th day of March, 2017 to Joe Titone, joetitono708@comr,ast.net. W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A. Counsel for Epstein 250 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 6554777 - Telephone (561) 83 - - E-Mail: By: /s/ W. Chester Brewer, Jr, W. CHF,STER BREWER, JR., ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 261858 EFTA00788371 W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW SUL111 1400 250 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE SOUTH WEST PALM BEACH, VLORMA 31401.5086 TEUTPHON13 (RS I) 65SAM FAX (561) 8354691 December 2, 2016 Via Email: joetitone708(geomcastnet Joe Titone, Esq. 621 S.E. 5th St Pompano Beach, FL 33060 Re: Service of Process Dear Joe, December 7, 2016 Via Email: Metitone708acomeastnet Joe Titone, Esq. 621 S.E. 56 Street Pompano Beach, FL 33060 Re: Service of Process Dear Joe: I have had an opportunity to review the Notice Service of Process that you filed in the Jean Luc Brunel/Jeffrey Epstein case. From my review it is clear that once again the attempt to serve runs afoul of Florida Statutes 48.031, as well as the holding in the Third District in HAUSER VS. SCHIFF, I have attached a copy of that case for your ready reference. It is now almost two years past the January 2015 filing date of your clients' amended complaint Joining Mr. Epstein as a defendant to the original action filed in August 2014. I remind you that no attempt was made to even serve Mr. Epstein until March 10, 2015. The required Notice of Service was never filed with the Court in respect of that attempt, which you, yourself, conceded in your later filed Motion for Reconsideration was improper service. After rescheduling the hearing on Mr. Epstein's April 29, 2015 Motion to Quash four separate times, you failed to appear at the July 27, 2016 hearing on that Motion which was delayed for morn than a year after its original filing date. The court granted Mr. Epstein's motion in your absence. At the subsequent October 5, 2016 hearing on your Motion for Reconsideration, you sought pardon from the Court for your failure to appear at the July 27, 2016 hearing on Mr. Epstein's Motion to Quash. You sought to excuse your absence, claiming that doe to a brain issue you somehow misunderstood the date on which you were M appear even though it was you, yourself, who cancelled the prevl in -aNaAnlati I' " n " 2016 hearing date and specifically i scheduled the hearing to take place on July 27, 2016. EXHIBIT I A EFTA00788372 The Court's grant of an additional 120 days for service in deference to your medical issues did not confer on you a license to continue to disregard the Jurisdictional perquisites of proper service, with which you have failed to comply oven after having had 681 days to do so. The failure to properly serve Mr. Epstein again is evident from the face of your Notice of Service of Process. No response to your clients' Amended Complaint is due or should be expected unless and until proper service is made. I remind you that the Judge required such service be made not later than 120 days following his October 5, 2016 order. Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, /s/ W Chester Brewer. Jr. W. Chaster Brewer, lair Attorney at Law One Clearlake Centro 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 1. '561.655.4777 17 561.835.134a EFTA00788373 -40mith rEAMIRR, APPelf/Mbi• • !kit daft ..4 pl itwor ; ,Haan Apartimmt Hotel, dippelite, District Court Appeal' Fililds; • Jet .11, ISTI. r. r I • Defendant hi,. civil minim! Moved. to diamies for lack of jurind[ddiet dteir iho person and inaufficieat service of process. The Circuit Court, Dade County, Paul Bak- er, J., denied the motion to diantisa, and plaintiff' apperchal. The District Court of Appeal, Sack, Moran, Associate Judge, held that aubstrtated service of 'Prdtiess at /de- fondant's office 'upon a secretary therein did 'not' Comply with applicable statute or pm:deka& • • ' •• • Substituted • eervieu • of ennInen3 sad complaint at defendant's place of business was insufficient where summons and com- e:at were merely left with defendant's setretag: Wesel FAX .4 Z. Proem owt7 •: ' • • ; • • Statutes governing substituted service of must he strictly construed had must be strictly complied • with.. West's F.S.A. 4 18.031. a. Preece sole .For -purpose .or statute, providing 'for abbilittited process, "Orrin of the family" may be a visitor for prolonged period in abode of 'person • to be served, bat person actually served most be residing in his home. Wart's F.S.A. I 48.081. Sea Pultation Words and Phrases for other Judicial constructions and definitions. " . • • • . m • Chavolo & Feldman; Miamratul.BoWard Herewith, Tallahassee, for 'Swell:tit:I. •• ; : WHAM/311'i; WHIFF I • I : • • Fla. 531 peanaii"s4l a lts I Smith, Mantras, Bmlth,'Parker & Werner, he linger, Miami Beath,. for:appellee. • • . . Before :HENDRY; t 7., PEARSON, 7, aid SACK,: MARTIN,: Associate ludas, • SACK, MARTIN,. Associate Judge. • In ad attempt to perfect para . °nil fiery . ioe of proof:ea tiPoithe appellant, Cite Freddy Carrera -went to the Office of Fleetwood It urines Agency, on the Bth 'flair of sea 'Biscayne •Boulevard, Mkmt, fdr, Carreras, ttpoh his arrival spoke to a secretary 'lad informed her he had come to serve the 'appellant with a paper. ; Thereafter,' with- *it wing the appellant, Mr. Carreras left the :rum:bons and coriplaint with the secre- tary andliopartod, He did not, at any time, infOrmihe secretary ructothe nature of the 11] •Based .the 7OrtliftiPlic Sb3. last moved tp &amiss for leek of jtuitdie- Eon over the persoc, insufficiency. of proo- ena, and loruffIdency of service of .prosear on the ground that process was not properly honied, purriaht 'to Section' 48.081; Fled& Statutes (2975). By this appal, the appel- lant challenges the caireetness of the trial court's denial of the motion to dlanthe. We are with 'the appellant and hereby ra- vine, (2,3) Section 48.081: 'Florida Statutes (WM) reads is folloits: • • • "Service of original process is made by delivering a copy [of It] to the person to be sawed with a copy of the complaint, petition or other Initial plead* or paper or by leaving the copies at his usual place of abode with some person of the family whaler fifteen years if age M. older and informing the poreon•rif their contents. Minors who sip at have been married shall be served as provided by this sea Soo." Statute, governing substituted service of premix emit bo strictly construed and must be strictly oomplied with. American Liber- ty lasumnee Company v. Maddpx, 238 Bold lid (Plaid D.C.A. 10/0); Athil'ito Linda, The v. Rossmoute, 271" 80.241 Si - (112.2d EFTA00788374 532 Fie. 341 SOU"fitERN RE 19/2X The term "usual place of abode" contained, in Section 48.031, Florida Restates (1976) means where the person is actually living at the.time of service. State v. Heffernan, 142 Fla.- 496, 196 So. 146 (1040). Furthermore, a "person of the fain- Cy" may bo a visitor for a prolonged period to the abode of the person to be served, but there is no queetkm that the peraon actually served must be raiding in his hide. . Sang- r. Me.Elnea, 278 Sold 675 (Fla.8rd Coots v. Maryland Casualty Company, 806 Sold 694 (F12.11d D.C.A. W76). . In light of the foregoing, there Is no wity this court can construe substituted write of proms at a man's office upon a sate- fiery therein to constitute compliance with the terms of Section 42031, Florida Stat. eta (1975). This is so, notwithstanding a failure to show the office in question was in fact the appellant's office and a conclusive showing that the process server tailed to 'inform the secretary as to the contenM of the papers. Therefore, the order' appealed is hereby !evened, and the cause Is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not in- consistent herewith. Reversed and remanded, with dliroctiont Anthony John PEDONF., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. Na 74-441. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third Dlatriet, Jan. 11, 1077. Rehearing Denied Jan. 27, 1977. , • , • • , Defindant with convicted .before the Circuit 'Court :for pule County, Man FL roans,..2d SERIFS ,.. • • Schwartz, J., of burglary, robbery, attempt- ed murder and grand larceny, and he ap- pealed. The District Court of Appeal held that evidence that defendant and accom. plies gained •entry through trickery rather than breaking and entering did not proecnt reversible error its regards burglary convic- tion but that it could not be said that pre. trial ertieidnient to complaint to change ono count from aggravited assault to at• tempted first-degree murder was not preju. tidal and, hence, conviction and sentence under such count for attempted =tinier in the wand degree was required to be. ro• versed for new trial Attinned !n Part, reversed in part and remanded. 1. Criminal law 44011074/ Conviction and sentence for attempted murder In the second degree wag required to be reversed for now trial since although there was doubt that pretrial amendment to complaint to change one count from aggra- vated assault to attempted flrat-degrae murder prejudiced defendant; reviewing court was not In a position to hold on the word that it was not prejudicial. 2. Burglary sin/ • . 'Whore entnuthe I/obtained by frith or fraud, a conviction for burglary will stand; hence, evidence that defendant and aceom- lilies gained entry through trickery rather than by breaking and entering did sot present revertible error as regards burglary conviction. 'Dna' .Mishkin and David B, Javits, *Miami, for appellant. . Robert L. Sitevin, Atty. Gen., twid Ira N. Loewy, Ant. Atty. Den., for appellee. Before HENDRY, 0. 3., and PEARSON and HAVERYIELD, PER CURIAM. . The defendant Anthony john Pedone was 'found guilty by a juiy of the separate crime EFTA00788375 IN THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION JEAN-LUC BRUNEL Civil Action No.: 14-21348 CA 01 Section 34 Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, TYLER MCDONALD, TYLER MCDONALD D/B/A/ YI.ORG Defendants. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REHEARING/RELIEF THIS CAUSE having come before the Court it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: THE MOTION IS """Zif-7/175".7 • P./Ai-WWI-1 . M -12.4eVre-6 /20 ,A4 r< -TO T -s- .--Ier..//c.f4"7. 44" 4-4-7zili c{ .% abrtio •-r otelri- ---/-7e-•:,) 41/4 (4/ / .i T—Aelt7-• --/-1,,Aw. 7/nu mw-rnsCe shil.t, Lae /D./sr p 1 A-4 - 0 1 4 PR-FT /-141/44- . , Gm 'ilieri‘ir-7? 10-01 -'7? AP* _77,9_s ed- i.rn P .1 iti 4 Ar dAscista-41,9,' DONE AND ORDERED in Dade County, Miami, Florida, on this -5- day of O croseg. • , 2016. RODNEY SMITH CIRCUIT JUDGE Copies Furnished: all counsel of record The Honorable Rodney Smith Circuit Court Judge 23 EFTA00788376 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-21348-CA-01 JEAN-LUC BRUNEL, individually, and MC2 MODEL & TALENT MIAMI, LLC. Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, TYLER MCDONALD, TYLER MCDONALD D/B/A/ YI.ORG Defendants. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMES NOW, the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, a resident of the United States Virgin Islands, by and through his undersigned counsel, and files this Motion to Dismiss, and. as good grounds therefore states as follows: 1. On October 5, 2016, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to effect service on Mr. Epstein within 120 days of the date of that order (i.e., by no later than February 2, 2017) and ruled that if Plaintiffs did not effect service within that time period, this case would be dismissed with prejudice and "no further order of this Court shall be necessary." As fully explained below, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully moves to dismiss all claims by Plaintiffs against him in this Action because, even after the undersigned counsel gave Plaintiffs timely and repeated notice of their improper and ineffective service attempt, Plaintiffs took no action to comply with the Court's service deadline. 2. In complete disregard for Florida's procedural rules and Florida Statutes Section 48.031(1)(a), on March 10, 2015, Plaintiffs improperly attempted to serve Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in New York by leaving process with a woman at a location that was not Mr. Epstein's EFTA00788377 usual place of abode. Plaintiffs never even filed a Notice of Service of Process in connection with that failed attempt. 3. The undersigned counsel promptly fded a motion to quash on behalf of Mr. Epstein in April 2015, which motion included Mr. Bpstoin's affidavit confirming the location of his residence and usual place of abode in the United States Virgin Islands. 4. Plaintiffs waited a full year to respond to that motion to quash and in their response, perhaps conceding that the attempted service was improper, asked this Court to disregard the procedural rules and order that Plaintiffs be permitted to serve Mr. Epstein through legal counsel (not the undersigned) not even of record in this case. 5. After Plaintiffs failed to appear at the hearing that Plaintiffs themselves scheduled on Mr. Epstein's motion to quash, on July 27, 2016, this Court granted Mr. Epstein's motion to quash. 6. Thereafter, Plaintiffs sought a rehearing, claiming that they did not ream that the hearing they themselves scheduled was proceeding, and on October 5, 2015, this court kindly granted Plaintiffs a full 120 additional days within which to properly servo Mr. Epstein, The Court fIzther ruled that if service is not effected within that time, this matter would be dismissed without prejudice and that "no further Order of this Court shall be necessary." 7. Plaintiffs made no attempt to comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Statutes Section 48.031(1)(a) and refused to oven attempt service on Mr. Epstein at his U.S. Virgin Islands residence and usual place of abode. Instead, on November 17, 2016, Plaintiffs chose to make only their second service attempt in the 647 days since the original summons was issued for Mr. Epstein in this case (which was Plaintiffs' one and only service attempt during the period of extension granted by this Court) by leaving the summons and amended complaint with a non-patty at an office address, which was clearly not Mr. Epstein's personal residence. EFTA00788378 8. For the numerous reasons cited in Mr. Epstein's Opposition to Motion for Ruling on Service of Process, Plaintiffs' November 17, 2016 service attempt was improper and ineffective. 9. On December 7, 2016, the undersigned attorney informed the attorney for the Plaintiffs that the November 17, 2016 service attempt was improper and ineffective in that it did not comply with the statutory prerequisites of Florida Statutes Section 48.031. Copy of December 7, 2016 letter attached hereto as Exhibit A. 10. Rather than attempt proper service even a single time before the expiration of the extended service window granted by the Court, Plaintiffs chose to do nothing until well after that window dosed. Having received the letter from Mr. Epstein's counsel on December 7, 2016, a full two months before the expiration of the extension period, Plaintiffs certainly could have filed their Motion For Ruling On Service Of Process on Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, With Attached Order, before the expiration of the service window, so that if the Court found, as it should, that Plaintiffs' service is defective, Plaintiffs. would have had sufficient time before the window closed to effectuate service properly. Instead, and as they have done for'the past two years, Plaintiffs chose to nothing until well after the service deadline expired. Now they ask this Court to again indulge their flagrant disregard for procedural law and the orders of this Court and hold that proper service has been obtained, even though, to do so would fly in the face of Florida law. 11. Because Plaintiffs have faikid to oven attempt proper service on Mr. Epstein for well over two years following their January 2015 filing of the amended complaint first joining Mr. Epstein as a party in this action, the Court should enforce its October 5, 2016 order and dismiss this matter as against Mr. Epstein. 12. Moreover, because Plaintiffs actions demonstrate a flagrant disregard for the procedural requirements of Florida law and the express order of this Court and evince a marked EFTA00788379 WHEREFORE, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the Amended Complaint as it pertains to Mr. Epstein, with prejudice and for such further relief as this Court find just and proper. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been electronically furnished via email and/or E-file on the 30th day of March, 2017 to Joe Titone, joetitone708@comcastmet. W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., ■. Counsel for Epstein 250 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 6554777 - Telephone (561) 83 - Fax E-Mail: By: /s/ W. Chester Brewer. Jr. W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 261858 EFTA00788380 W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., M. ATTDRNBY AT LAW SUITS 1400 250 AUSTRALIAN AVENUBSCYJIII WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 47401.5086 TBIZPHONE. (MO6554W FAX (561) 83S4891 December 2, 2016 Via Email: joetitone70S®comeast.net Joe Titone, Esq. 621 S.E. 5th St. Pompano Beach, FL 33060 Re: Service of Process Dear Joe, December 7, 2016 Via Email: ioetitone708Zeomcast.nel Joe Tttone, Esq. 621 S.E. 5u' Street Pompano Beach , FL 33060 Re: Service of Process Dear Joe: I have had an opportunity to review the Notice Service of Process that you filed in the Jean Luc Bmnelllettrey Epstein case. From my review it is clear that once again the attempt to serve runs afoul of Florida Statutes 48.031, as well as the holding in the Third District in liAIJSER VS. SCHIFF. I have attached a copy of that case for your ready reference. It is now almost two years past the January 2015 filing date of your clients' amended complaint joining Mr. Epstein as a defendant to the original action filed in August 2014. I remind you that no attempt was made to even serve Mr. Epstein until March 10, 2015. The required Notice of Service was never riled with the Court in respect of that attempt, which you, yourself, conceded In your later flied Motion for Reconsideration was improper service. After rescheduling the hearing on Mr. Epstein's April 29, 2015 Motion to Quash four separate times, you failed to appear at the July 27, 2016 hearing on that Motion which was delayed for more than a year after its original filing date. The Court granted Mr. Epstein's motion in your absence. At the subsequent October 5, 2016 hearing on your Motion for Reconsideration, you sought pardon from the Court for your failure to appear at the July 27, 2016 hearing on Mr. Epstein's Motion to Quash. You sought to excuse your • absence, claiming that duo to a brain issue you somehow misunderstood the date on which you wore to appear oven though it was you, yourself, who cancelled the previ 1.. •.4....4”1"4 2016 hearing date and specifically I I scheduled the hearing to take place on July 27, 2016. EXHIBIT EFTA00788381 The Court's grant of an additional 120 days for service in deference to your medical issues did not confer on you a license to continue to disregard the Jurisdictional perquisites of proper service, with which you have failed to comply even after having had 681 days to do so. The failure to properly serve Mr. Epstein again is evident from the face of your Notice of Service of Process. No response to your clients' Amended Complaint Is due or should be expected unless and until proper service is made. I remind you that the Judge required such service be made not later than 120 days following his October 5, 2016 order. Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, Is/ W. Chester Brewer. ✓r. W. Chester Brewer, Attorney at Law One Clearlake Centro 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL. 33401 T j 561.655.4777 VI X561.835.8691 EFTA00788382