Epstein Secrets

osario "may be called upon to provide evidence is not sufficient to make [him a] necessary part[y]" under Rule 19(aX1)(A). Gibbs Wire & Steel Co. v Johnson, 255 F.R.D. 326, 330 (D. Conn. 2009); see Johnson v. Smithsonian Inst., 189 F.3d 180, 188-89 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Rule 19 does not list the need to obt

ideration Epstein et at vs. Fancelli Paneling, Inc. Case No. ST-I 0-CV443 "Library Cabinetry"). As third party beneficiaries of that contract with Fancelli, Plaintiffs filed suit against Fancelli for breach of contract and negligence because the Library Cabinetry is defective and its installation was i

against Fancelli for breach of contract and negligence because the Library Cabinetry is defective and its installation was improper and incomplete. Fancelli was served with the Summons and First Amended Complaint on December 3, 2010. On December 30, 2010, Plaintiffs and JP and Molyneux entered into a co

n the proposal that was submitted to the Court. If the Defendants want to further contest the issue, they can properl raise the issue by motion. " Johnson v. Smithsonian Inst, 189 F.3d 180, 188 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1999) (finding that the District Court e • in considering a party a necessary party because it

racted with Fancelli Paneling to install furniture and other paneling in the residence's I brary cabinetry. Upon discovering various deficiencies in Fancelli's work, Plaintiffs, as third party I Plaintiffs Jeffrey Epstein and L.S.J., LLC are represented by Denise Francois, Esq. Defendant Fancelli P eling,

Rosario "may be called upon to provide evidence is not sufficient to make [him a] necessary part)" under Rule 19(a)(1XA). Gibbs Wire & Steel Co. v. Johnson, 255 326, 330 (D. Conn. 2009); see Johnson v. Smithsonian Inst., 189 F.3d 180, 188-89 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Rule 19 does not list the need to obtain ev

wood paneling for the library of the Office Pavilion (the "Library Cabinetry"). Under third party beneficiary status, Plaintiffs filed suit against Fancelli for breach cn EFTA00307562 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER ENTERED MAY 24, 2011 Epstein e