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

cited by Defendant EPSTEIN do not support a decision by this Court to abstain over what is a purely federal claim. In American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (11th Cir. 1990), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because there had been an earlier cl

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

sdiction. Id.' Because concurrent jurisdiction exists over this federal claim, the six factor analysis as discussed in American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882, 884 (11th Cir. 1990), applies in determining whether the exceptional circumstances exist requiring dismissal of the federal action i

Dismiss must be denied; however, if the Court determines otherwise, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend. Respectfully submitted, BY: s/ Isidro M. Garcia ISIDRO M. GARCIA Florida Bar No. AIR IA LAW FIRM P.A. West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephon Telecopie e-mail CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ft bellsouth

cited by Defendant EPSTEIN do not support a decision by this Court to abstain over what is a purely federal claim. In American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (111" Cir. 1990), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because there had been an earlier c