Epstein Secrets

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

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

: 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

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

g served this day on all counsel of reco&identified on the f (lowing Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this Nrday of T11O 2008: Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein Es counser or Kaustilt—Jane Doe #7 Respectfully submitted, By: ROBE JR., ESQ. BURMAN, C

n Count Ill 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. Twomblv 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In discussing Twomblv, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir.

: 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

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

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

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

: 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

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

g document is being served this day on all counsel of record entified on the following manner specified by 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 f

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.

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

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