Epstein Secrets

a legally cognizable right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d

2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I ------------ JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ___________ __;/ JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________ / JANE DOE NO. 5, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ___________ _

a legally cognizable right of action"}, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact}, see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002}; Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d

e definite statement directed to the Amended Complaints filed against Defendant in this Court in JANE DOE NO. 2, JANE DOE NO. 3, JANE DOE NO. 4 and JANE DOE NO. 5. The motions are directed to the Counts for "Sexual Assault and Battery," and "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18

entitlement to relief, and the statement must “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 54 Entered o

t”)’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More Definite Statement, Directed to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (DE 46), filed October 6, 2008. Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 (“Plaintiff”) filed a response to the motion (DE 49) and Defendant filed a Reply (DE 50). The Court has carefully reviewed the motion, respons

are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.

miss and for more definite statement of Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 6's Complaint. Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(e), Fed

ot contain enough information to allow a responsive pleading to be framed, the proper motion to be filed is a motion for a more definite statement. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Sisk v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dep't, 644 F.2d 1056, 1059 (5'h Cir. 1981).' Courts typically grant motio

is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant")'s Motion to Dismiss, for More Definite Statement & To Strike Directed to Plaintiff Jane Doe's Amended Complaint (DE 87). The Court has reviewed the motion, response (DE 92) and reply (DE 104) and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

e on its face."). As a general matter, I am loath to assume that the Supreme Court circumvented the normal channels for amending the Federal Rules. Swierkiewicz I Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 515 (2002) ("A requirement of greater specificity for particular claims is a result that must be obtained by the process of

ocument 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT THIS CAUSE is

e on its face."). As a general matter, I am loath to assume that the Supreme Court circumvented the normal channels for amending the Federal Rules. Swierkiewicz I Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 515 (2002) ("A requirement of greater specificity for particular claims is a result that must be obtained by the process of

ocument 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT THIS CAUSE is

ot contain enough information to allow a responsive pleading to be framed, the proper motion to be filed is a motion for a more definite statement. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Sisk v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dep't 644 F.2d 1056, 1059 (5' Cir. 1981)) Courts typically grant motions

ocument 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2010 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant")'s Motion to Dism

ot contain enough information to allow a responsive pleading to be framed, the proper motion to be filed is a motion for a more definite statement. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Sisk v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dep't 644 F.2d 1056, 1059 (5' Cir. 1981)) Courts typically grant motions

ocument 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2010 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant")'s Motion to Dism