Epstein Secrets

ffrey 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) [email protected] HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami,

lementary rules of civil procedure that have governed litigation in the federal courts for the past seventy years. The Court’s forced retirement of Conley v. Gibson’s “no set of facts” language does not change the fundamental command of Rule 8 as to what a valid complaint must look like. Indeed, the

rved this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 6th day of October, 2008: Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877

rs beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove not set of facts in support of his 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

ved this day on all counsel of record identified on 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

ars beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove not set of facts in support of his 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

: 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 Plaintiffs Jane Doe 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami

lementary rules of civil procedure that have governed litigation in the federal courts for the past seventy years. The Court's forced retirement of Conley'. Gibson's "no set of facts" language does not change the fundamental command of Rule 8 as to what a valid complaint must look like. Indeed, the C

rved this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 6th 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

rs beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove not set of facts in support of his 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

: 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 Plaintiffs Jane Doe 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami

lementary rules of civil procedure that have governed litigation in the federal courts for the past seventy years. The Court's forced retirement of Conley. Gibson's "no set of facts" language does not change the fundamental command of Rule 8 as to what a valid complaint must look like. Indeed, the Co

: 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 Plaintiffs Jane Doe 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami

lementary rules of civil procedure that have governed litigation in the federal courts for the past seventy years. The Court's forced retirement of Conley. Gibson's "no set of facts" language does not change the fundamental command of Rule 8 as to what a valid complaint must look like. Indeed, the Co

1- By: Jeffrey M. Herman jherman@,hermanlaw.com Florida Bar No. 521647 Stuart S. Mcrmelstein [email protected] Florida Bar No. 947245 Adam D. Horowitz Florida Bar No. 376980 [email protected] www.hermanlaw.com - 5 - EFTA00222674 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM DocuncsiMik- CCNERealt:IFEITSD Doc

rs beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove not set of facts in support of his 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

: s/ Jeffrey M. Herman Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) ,smehermanlaw.com Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] HERMAN & MERMELSTELN, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami,

lementary rules of civil procedure that have governed litigation in the federal courts for the past seventy years. The Court's forced retirement of Conley'. Gibson's "no set of facts" language does not change the fundamental command of Rule 8 as to what a valid complaint must look like. Indeed, the C

d by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. /s/ Adam D. Horowitz -7- EFTA00175230 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DIST

n 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, the basis for relief in the complaint must state "more than labels and concl