Epstein Secrets

ff has exercised diligence and good faith in attempting to serve Defendant Epstein with process. Accordingly, entry of default is appropriate.”). The Eleventh Circuit is clear, however, that “actual notice of a suit does not dispose of the requirements of service of process.” Jackson v. Warden, FCC Coleman-USP,

and Procedural History 1. On May 7, 2008, service was delivered at defendant Epstein’s house located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York, to Richard Barnett, an employee. 2. Mr. Barnett does not reside at that address. See Affidavit of Richard Barnett (attached as Ex. A). 3. Upon the plaintiff

, service was delivered at defendant Epstein’s house located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York, to Richard Barnett, an employee. 2. Mr. Barnett does not reside at that address. See Affidavit of Richard Barnett (attached as Ex. A). 3. Upon the plaintiff’s motion,2 the Clerk of Court den

ule. This is not a matter of mere technical non-compliance. Actual notice cannot be used to override the basic requirements of Rule 4(e)(2)(B). As the Eleventh Circuit has noted, "actual notice of a suit does not dispose of the requirements of service of process." Jackson v. Warden, FCC Coleman-USP, 259 Fed. Appx

testify. The Court should also deny Plaintiff's motion for Rule 11 sanctions based upon the submission of an allegedly fraudulent affidavit by Mr. Barnett. Plaintiff has not offered any probative evidence of fraud, relying solely on caustic rhetoric. Moreover, Plaintiff has violated the mandatory saf

tant case solely to harass the Defendant and create a tempest in a teapot? Conduct involving two witnesses in prior litigation, neither of whom is Richard Bamett, is patently irrelevant to the narrow, threshold issue of whether substitute service was properly made in the instant case, and should 2Plaintiff's

ess, prejudice, and a meritorious defense are the most often 'In Bonner" City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 & 1209 (11111 Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 2 EFTA00221159 Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Docume

declaration, the Court cannot determine whether "John Smith" resides at the Manhattan apartment. Further, Defendant has submitted the affidavit of Richard Barnett, who avers that he received copies of the summons and complaint on May 7, 2008, from the process server. (DE 11 Ex. A.) Because Plaintiff has provi

ss, prejudice, and a meritorious defense are the most often 'In Bonner.. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 & 1209 (11111 Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 2 EFTA00222637 Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Docume

declaration, the Court cannot determine whether "John Smith" resides at the Manhattan apartment. Further, Defendant has submitted the affidavit of Richard Barnett, who avers that he received copies of the summons and complaint on May 7, 2008, from the process server. (DE 9 Ex. A.) Because Plaintiff has provid