Epstein Secrets

led himself of the benefits and protections of the EFTA00310011 DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS &stein. et at v. Falwell' Paneling. Inc. Page laws of the forum state." Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 474-476. The purposeful availment requirement "ensures that a defend

ated to conduct purposely directed at the forum state. Id. Defendant maintains that this Court lacks specific jurisdiction over it as well, because Fancelli does not have sufficient minimum contacts with the Virgin Islands to support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with due process. See Int'l Sho

e and as may be developed through discovery. The reservation of rights was just that. V. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs Amended Complaint against Defendant Fancelli must be dismissed, with prejudice, for all, or any of the foregoing reasons. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to gr

ent or through service upon the Secretary of State. In addition, Fancelli argues that it is not a citizen or resident of the Virgin Islands, does 2 Falwell' alleges In Its Motion to Dismiss that Epstein is also a resident of New York, NY, and Palm Beach, Florida. However, the Court accepts as true the n

and that venue is improper.' e Court finds that Fancelli conducted business and contracted to supply services or things in 's Territory. Therefore, Fancelli is subject to the Court's jurisdiction. In addition, the Court ds that Plaintiffs have pleaded a sufficient claim for breach of a third-party benefi

Amended Complaint, arguing, among other things, that Plaintiffs' service of process was insufficient that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Fancelli; that Plaintiffs do not state a laim for relief; that Plaintiffs have failed to join a necessary party; and that venue is improper.' e Court finds

inst Defendant for failure to correct the multitude of 27 EFTA00309207 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Epstein et al. it Falwell' Paneling. Inc. Case No. ST-I0-CV-443 defects in and to properly and fully complete the fabrication, installation, staining and finishing of the L

to Mr. Jean Pierre Fancelli. 5 In addition, Defendant specifically informed Plaintiffs' counsel, Darren lndyke, that because of limitations with Mr. Fancelli's ability to communicate in English, Mr. lndyke should communicate with Mr. Fancelli through Mr. Barthod . Pl. Ex. 3 Thus, Mr. Barthod has been pre

Ex. 4. In support of its argument for insufficient service of process, Defendant asserts that the ...Summons and Complaint (sic) were delivered to Fancelli's office in New York on or about November 29, 2010 and left at that location with an unauthorized employee of Fancelli Paneling, Inc." However, Mr.