Epstein Secrets

Point EFTA00175272 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 11 of 11 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 11 Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 F isidrogarcia(a:bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff Jack A

ant Jeffrey Epstein Date Filed: 03/24/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question represented by Isidro Manuel Garcia Garcia Elkins & Boehringer 224 Datura Avenue Suite 900 West Palm Beach , FL 33401 I - Email:11111 LEAD ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Mi

7), as the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard is misplaced. As discussed in Defendant's motion to dismiss, (pp. 16 - 17), the standard as detailed in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twomblv, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), Is now the applicable standard, not Conley. Although the complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations

following service list in the manner pecified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this day of g µ , 2009: Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 33401 west Palm Beach FL Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Go

.S.C. §2255 (2005). Ill. Standard - Motion To Dismiss, More Definite Statement. Pleading, & Motion to Strike As established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), a motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief t

Docket 06/01/2009 Page 11 of 11 Garcia Law Firm, P.A. FL 33401 aa,bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 11 Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 aH pens ith.net ti3ZFunsel for Defendant Jeff

7), as the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard is misplaced. As discussed in Defendant's motion to dismiss, (pp. 16 — 17), the standard as detailed in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), is now the applicable standard, not Conley. Although the complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations