Epstein Secrets

Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (1990) 3 Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478 (2012) Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) Leocal v. Ashcroft, 11 passim 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 11 Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999) 6 Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 12, 13 Shular v. United Stat

., 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 6, 9 Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (1990) 3 Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478 (2012) Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) Leocal v. Ashcroft, 11 passim 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 11 Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999) 6 Nijhawa

ejection of a retroactivity provision ends the inquiry at step one in Ms. Maxwell's favor. "[W]here the congressional intent is clear, it governs." Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 264 (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Cap. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 837 (1990)). As Ms. Maxwell's opening memorandum demonstrated, co

ion that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. The United States Supreme Court very recently made clear in Ashcroft v. labal, No. 07-1015 (U.S. May 18, EFTA00222862 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 2 of 11 Jane Doe II

ng on or commenced after the date of enactment of this Act,' " "might possibly have qualified as a clear statement for retroactive effect" (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 260, 114 S.Ct. at 1494)); Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 307-08, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 1517, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994) (noting

ly retroactively. Congress may prescribe the temporal reach of a statute by stating that it applies to pre-enactment conduct, the first step in the Landgraf analysis, or a statute may be silent regarding temporal reach, in which case courts apply the judicial presumption against retroactivity. This pres

S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36, 41, 42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.

new duties with respect to transactions already completed." Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist, 49 F.3d 886, 890 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280). Applying Section 3283 here would have none of those effects. Maxwell's rights, liabilities, and duties were governed by the subst

Timely 23 A. Statutory Background 24 B. The 2003 Amendment to Section 3283 Applies Retroactively 26 1. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step One of Landgraf 28 2. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step Two of Landgraf 32 C. The Defendant's Crimes Involved the Sexual Abuse of Minors 36 III. The Defendant'

S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36, 41, 42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.

new duties with respect to transactions already completed." Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist, 49 F.3d 886, 890 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280). Applying Section 3283 here would have none of those effects. Maxwell's rights, liabilities, and duties were governed by the subst

Timely 23 A. Statutory Background 24 B. The 2003 Amendment to Section 3283 Applies Retroactively 26 1. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step One of Landgraf 28 2. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step Two of Landgraf 32 C. The Defendant's Crimes Involved the Sexual Abuse of Minors 36 III. The Defendant'

ion that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. The United States Supreme Court very recently made clear in Ashcroft v. lubal No. 07-1015 (U.S. May 18, EFTA00175268 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 3 of 11 Jane Doe II

ng on or commenced after the date of enactment of this Act,' " "might possibly have qualified as a clear statement for retroactive effect" (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 260, 114 S.Ct. at 1494)); Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 307-08, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 1517, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994) (noting

ly retroactively. Congress may prescribe the temporal reach of a statute by stating that it applies to pre-enactment conduct, the first step in the Landgraf analysis, or a statute may be silent regarding temporal reach, in which case courts apply tho judicial presumption against retroactivity. This pres

U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir

new duties with respect to transactions already completed." Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist, 49 F.3d 886, 890 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280). Applying Section 3283 here would have none of those effects. Maxwell's rights, liabilities, and duties were governed by the subst

Timely 23 A. Statutory Background 24 B. The 2003 Amendment to Section 3283 Applies Retroactively 26 1. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step One of Landgraf 28 2. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step Two of Landgraf 32 C. The Defendant's Crimes Involved the Sexual Abuse of Minors 36 III. The Defendant'

onjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (1990) 6 Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478 (2012) 13 Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) passim Lattab v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2004) 7 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 13 Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999) 7 Shular v. United States, 140

ecome obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past." Id. at 114-15. In Landgraf, the Supreme Court articulated a two-step framework to evaluate the proposed retroactive application of a statute to a particular case: [T]he court

ungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) Landgraf v. US! Film Products, 148 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 27 Landgraf, 511 U.S 27, 30, 32 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 40 Lighte, 782 F.3d 120 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 98 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 59

imely 23 A. Statutory Background 24 B. The 2003 Amendment to Section 3283 Applies Retroactively 26 1. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step One of Landgraf 27 2. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step Two of Landgraf 32 C. The Defendant's Crimes Involved the Sexual Abuse of Minors 36 III. The Defendant'

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009). While the Court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the ten

t has already occurred versus creating a new cause of action or a new civil remedy. The support for that, your Honor, is the U.S. Supreme Court in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, which I cited in my papers for a different proposition, but it's found at 511 U.S. 244. In that case, your Honor, the U.S. S