Epstein Secrets

the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 14th day of October, 2008: Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Respectfully submitt By: ROBERT D.JCRITTON, JR., E

KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2008 Page 3 of 9 Case No. CV-80993-Hurley/Hopkins Page No. 3 As established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), a motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief th

tirety. Dated: October 31, 2008. Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Jeffrey M. Herman Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@ hermanlaw.com HERMAN & MERMELSTE1N, P.A. Attorneys for Pla

ort of their claims in Counts I and III. According to Defendant, the pleadings in this case do not satisfy "the standard of pleading" established in Bell Atlantic Corp. I. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In making this argument, Defendant would extend Twomblv well beyond its intended scope. Twombly was an antitrust

tirety. Dated: October 31, 2008. Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Jeffrey M. Herman Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@ hermanlaw.com HERMAN & MERMELSTE1N, P.A. Attorneys for Pla

ort of their claims in Counts I and III. According to Defendant, the pleadings in this case do not satisfy "the standard of pleading" established in Bell Atlantic Corp. I. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In making this argument, Defendant would extend Twomblv well beyond its intended scope. Twombly was an antitrust

enied. Dated: September 22, 2008. Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Jeffrey M. Herman Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@ hermanlaw.com HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. Attorneys for Pla

or conclusions; rather it is determined by the factual allegations, which "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. I. Twombley 127 5. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Here, the factual allegations establish an intentional tort claim for sexual assault and battery.3 See Pau

tirety. Dated: October 31, 2008. Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Jeffrey M. Herman Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@ hermanlaw.com HERMAN & MERMELSTE1N, P.A. Attorneys for Pla

ort of their claims in Counts I and III. According to Defendant, the pleadings in this case do not satisfy "the standard of pleading" established in Bell Atlantic Corp. I. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In making this argument, Defendant would extend Twomblv well beyond its intended scope. Twombly was an antitrust

CM/ECF on this/0 day of November 2008: Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger 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

n Count III pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§2422, and Defendant has not "misconstrued" the pleading standard formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir.

ng served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of gal , 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 60 Fax: ssmasexa useattornev.com EFTA00175250

7), as the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard is misplaced. As discussed in Defendant's motion to dismiss, (pp. 16 - 17), the standard as detailed in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twomblv, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), Is now the applicable standard, not Conley. Although the complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations