Epstein Secrets

its motion a designation of record and statement of issues. North Shore did not attach a brief. Subsequently, James P. Carroll, Chapter 7 Trustee ("Carroll"), filed a motion to dismiss this matter for lack of prosecution. North Shore did not file an opposition. On March 28, 2012, this Court entered an

ENTIAL — PURSUANT TO FED. R.cON(F IDENTIAL DB-SONY-0020028 EFTA_00 I 67772 EFTA01295869 Page 10 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93633, * 2 PrehjUdICO 10 Carroll The second Poulis factor considers prejudice to the appellee caused by the appellant's failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery.

L DB-SONY-0020020 EFTA 00167764 EFTA01295861 Page 2 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93633, * PRIOR HISTORY: Carroll v. N. Shore Real Estate Corp. (In re Prosser), 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 1566 (Bankr. D.V.I., May 26, 2010) CASE SUMMARY: OVERVIEW: Appellant filed a notice of appeal from a decision of the bankruptc

ed transfers made from Debtor Jeffrey Prosser to his wife, Defendant Dawn Prosser. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Trustee Carroll and against Prosser. Thereafter, Prosser moved for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, filed a ["2] "protective" motion for a new t

the assets. In addition, Prosser argues Carroll failed to prove Jeffrey Prosser's insolvency at the time of each transfer, an essential element of Carroll's claims, Carroll contends these two issues [*3] have been waived because Prosser failed to raise them in a motion for judgment as a matter of law

Islands, St. Thomas and St. John Division 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79534 June 6, 2012, Decided June 6, 2012, Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Affirmed by Prosser v. Carroll (In re Prosser), 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15853 (3d Cir. V.I., Aug. 1, 2013) For internal use only SDNY_GM_00059974 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUAN

Adv. Pro. No. 08-03048, ECF No. 36). That argument ignores the numerous opportunities which North Shore had to oppose Carroll's factual assertions. Carroll served North Shore with various requests for discovery, including requests for admissions. North Shore failed to adequately respond to such requests

guments. First, it argued that the bankruptcy court should reconsider because it improperly failed to consider Dawn Prosser's affidavit in deciding Carroll's motion for summary judgment. That argument is unsupported by the record. This Court has herein cited to numerous references in the bankruptcy cou

eration, North Shore made two arguments. First, it argued that the bankruptcy court should reconsider because it improperly failed to consider Dawn Prosser's affidavit in deciding Carroll's motion for summary judgment. That argument is unsupported by the record. This Court has herein cited to numerous r