EFTA Document EFTA01387839
Page 4 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139535, * Jeffrey Marc Herman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Herman & Mermelstein, Miami, FL USA; Stuart S. Mermelstein, LEAD ATTORNEY, Herman Law, Boca Raton, FL USA. For Jane Doe No. 6, Plaintiff (9:08-cv-80994-KAM): Adam D. Horowitz, LEAD ATTORNEY, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos, Lehrman, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, FL USA; Jeffrey Marc Herman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Herman & Mermelstein, Miami, FL USA; Stuart S. Mermelstein, LEAD ATTORNEY, Herman Law, Boca Raton, FL USA. F
Summary
Page 4 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139535, * Jeffrey Marc Herman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Herman & Mermelstein, Miami, FL USA; Stuart S. Mermelstein, LEAD ATTORNEY, Herman Law, Boca Raton, FL USA. For Jane Doe No. 6, Plaintiff (9:08-cv-80994-KAM): Adam D. Horowitz, LEAD ATTORNEY, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos, Lehrman, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, FL USA; Jeffrey Marc Herman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Herman & Mermelstein, Miami, FL USA; Stuart S. Mermelstein, LEAD ATTORNEY, Herman Law, Boca Raton, FL USA. F
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (5)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
9:08-CV-80811-KAM9:08-CV-80893-KAM9:08-CV-80993-KAM9:08-CV-80994-KAM9:09-CV-80469-KAMRelated Documents (6)
EFTA Document EFTA01387839
EFTA01387839
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
EFTA02729648
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 1 of 15 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, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion To Stay And Or Continue Action For Time Certain Based On Parallel Civil And Criminal Proceedings With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby moves this Court for the entry of an order staying or continuing this action for a time certain (i.e., until late 2010 when the NPA expires), pursuant to the application of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the fact that a parallel proceeding is ongoing and being investigated. In support of his motion, EPSTEIN states: I. Introduction At the outset, EPSTEIN notes this Court's prior Order, (DE 33), in which this Court denied a motion for stay brought by Def
EFTA Document EFTA01428364
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.