Epstein Secrets

SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Michael R. Tein, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Michael Pike, Esq. [email protected] s/ Jeffrey M. Herman 11 EFTA002211

ort of their claims in Counts I and III. According to Defendant, the pleadings in this case do not satisfy "the standard of pleading" established in Bell Atlantic Corp. I. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In making this argument, Defendant would extend Twomblv well beyond its intended scope. Twombly was an antitrust

SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Michael R. Tein, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Michael Pike, Esq. [email protected] s/ Jeffrey M. Herman 11 EFTA002220

ort of their claims in Counts I and III. According to Defendant, the pleadings in this case do not satisfy "the standard of pleading" established in Bell Atlantic Corp. I. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In making this argument, Defendant would extend Twomblv well beyond its intended scope. Twombly was an antitrust

CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Michael R. Tein, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Michael Pike, Esq. [email protected] /s/ Jeffrey M. Herman HERMAN & MERM

or conclusions; rather it is determined by the factual allegations, which "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. I. Twombley 127 5. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Here, the factual allegations establish an intentional tort claim for sexual assault and battery.3 See Pau

SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Michael R. Tein, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Michael Pike, Esq. [email protected] s/ Jeffrey M. Herman 11 EFTA002224

ort of their claims in Counts I and III. According to Defendant, the pleadings in this case do not satisfy "the standard of pleading" established in Bell Atlantic Corp. I. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In making this argument, Defendant would extend Twomblv well beyond its intended scope. Twombly was an antitrust

Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Es Service List in the Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Michael R. Tein, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Lewis Tein, P.L. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully sub By: ROBERT D RITTON JR., ESQ.

n Count III pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§2422, and Defendant has not "misconstrued" the pleading standard formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir.