Epstein Secrets

.3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 119 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 1997) ("circumstances may be so suspicious as to suggest to a reasonably prudent plaintiff that the defendant's represent

ge Other Predicate Acts 16 C. The FAC Fails to Meet the Twombly/Igbal Standard 18 D. The Claim Is Barred by the Statute of Limitations 19 E. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Defendants 21 F. Venue Is Improperly Laid in the Southern District of New York 22 CONCLUSION 22 EFTA00307097 Defendants Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and

3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 119 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 1997) ("circumstances may be so suspicious as to suggest to a reasonably prudent plaintiff that the defendant's representa

f the specific factual allegations necessary to establish what Epstein or=actually did during that limitations period to violate the statute. III. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Defendants The Complaint alleges without elaboration that Defendants are residents of New York. Cplt. ¶ ¶ 4, 8. However, the Complaint alleges no facts to

3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 119 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 1997) ("circumstances may be so suspicious as to suggest to a reasonably prudent plaintiff that the defendant's representa

cifying what Epstein or actually did to violate the statute. Doc. # DC-10084480 v.8 EFTA00298463 Brad Edwards, Esq. May , 2017 Page 10 III. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Defendants The Complaint alleges without elaboration that Defendants are residents of New York. Cplt. II 4, 8. However, the Complaint alleges no facts to supp