Epstein Secrets

original memorandum, that Defendant EPSTEIN may not contest this Court's jurisdiction based on the Non Prosecution Agreement ("NPA"). Although the State Court action is not a part of this Complaint, and is not alleged in the four (4) corners of it, it is a fact that cannot be contested since Plaintiff has

n, but it was a damages remedy that already existed at the time of Defendant EPSTEIN's commission of the acts against the minor. Hence, here, unlike Landsgraf, there was an existing civil remedy prior to Defendant EPSTEIN's commission of the acts against the minor Plaintiff, and there continues to be such

Plaintiff has not been able to 12 EFTA00222884 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 13 of 19 dissent in Landsgraf, there is no vested right to break the law." Bottom line is, a motion to dismiss a claim is not the correct procedural mechanism to determine the r

), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because there had been an earlier claim for declaratory relief in State Court; the Eleventh Circuit reversed, concluding ...that no exceptional circumstances require dismissal of this case in deference to the pending state c

y not present here, and the record is devoid of any factual material that would support such a conclusion.1° As Justice Blackmun said in dissent in Landsgraf, there is no vested right to break the law." Bottom line is, a motion to dismiss a claim is not the correct procedural mechanism to determine the r

), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because there had been an earlier claim for declaratory relief in State Court; the Eleventh Circuit reversed, concluding ...that no exceptional circumstances require dismissal of this case in deference to the pending state c

y not present here, and the record is devoid of any factual material that would support such a conclusion.10 As Justice Blackmun said in dissent in Landsgraf, there is no vested right to break the law." Bottom line is, a motion to dismiss a claim is not the correct procedural mechanism to determine the r