Epstein Secrets

Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. EPSTEIN and Defendants, DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CA

omplaint 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 338 (198.9) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a

for more definite statement directed to the Amended Complaints filed against Defendant in this Court in JANE DOE NO. 2 (Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra/Johnson), JANE DOE NO. 3 (Case No. 08-CV- 80232-Marra/Johnson), JANE DOE NO. 4 (Case No. 08-CV-80380-Marra/Johnson), and JANE DOE NO. 5 (Case No. 08-CV-8038

mplaint 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 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a c

-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 07:1672008 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey

mplaint 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 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a c

tered on FLSD Docket 06)12'2009 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant's, Epstein. Motion To Dismiss, For More Definite Statement & To Strike Directed To Plainti

omplaint 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.Q. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(bX6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a com

ment 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. Y EPSTEIN and Defendants. PLAINTIFF, M.'S, CONDITIONAL NOTICE OF INTENT TO EXCLUSIVELY RELY ON STATUTORY DAMAGES PROVIDED BY 18

v. Epstein, et al. age 4 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 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a c