Epstein Secrets

st look like. Indeed, the Court made clear that it was not imposing a heightened pleading standard. As a general matter, I am loath to assume that the Supreme Court circumvented the normal channels for amending the Federal Rules. The Court’s “new standard” was merely a specific way to articulate a solution to

E LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Michael R. Tein, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Michael Pike, Esq. [email protected] s/

s claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can] survive a motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings le[ave] open the possibili

Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Michael R. Tein, Esq. Lewis Tein, P.L. 3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 retnnntif rlremict CI '2'2 133 Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein EFTA00222003 Case 9:

. 1955 (2007). In discussing Twombly, 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 a

Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Es Service List in the Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Michael R. Tein, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Lewis Tein, P.L. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully sub By: ROBERT D RITTON JR., ESQ.