4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
s.") (emphasis added). One district court within the Eleventh Circuit, facing the identical issue with a pending state
ngs over civil proceedings." Cf United States v. Hanhardt, 156 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1000 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (citi
njoin the stay. And we conclude that this provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). One district court within the Eleventh Circuit, facing the identical issue with a pending state prosecution, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirfing] a stay in a case
plain language of the statute, also adhered to the "well established priority of criminal proceedings over civil proceedings." Cf. United States v. Hanhardt, 156 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1000 (N.D. I11. 2001) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 50(a)). Conclusion Because this civil action arises from the same allegations
njoin the stay. And we conclude that this provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). One district court within the Eleventh Circuit, facing the identical issue with a pending state prosecution, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirfing] a stay in a case
plain language of the statute, also adhered to the "well established priority of criminal proceedings over civil proceedings." Cf. United States v. Hanhardt, 156 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1000 (N.D. III. 2001) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 50(a)). Conclusion Because this civil action arises from the same allegations
njoin the stay. And we conclude that this provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). One district court within the Eleventh Circuit, facing the identical issue with a pending state prosecution, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirfing] a stay in a case
plain language of the statute, also adhered to the "well established priority of criminal proceedings over civil proceedings." Cf. United States v. Hanhardt, 156 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1000 (N.D. I11. 2001) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 50(a)). Conclusion Because this civil action arises from the same allegations
Entities connected to both the Eleventh Circuit and Hanhardt

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSONJane Doe
PERSON
Kenneth Marra
PERSONthe Southern District
LOCATIONJack Goldberger
PERSON
Adam D. Horowitz
PERSONStuart S. Mermelstein
PERSON
Jeffrey Marc Herman
PERSON
Jennifer Lopez
PERSONDoe v. Francis
PERSONFifteenth Judicial Circuit
ORGANIZATIONBay County
LOCATIONLexecon Inc.
ORGANIZATIONPalm Beach Circuit Court
ORGANIZATIONMilberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
ORGANIZATIONHerman & Mermelstein
ORGANIZATIONJANE DOE NO
PERSONLopez v. Davis
PERSONAccord Doe v. Francis
PERSON