Epstein Secrets

y prevail in a trial on the merits, but whether they should be afforded an opportunity to offer evidence in support of their claims." /d. (citing Scheuer I Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73

r the plain- tiffs to amend their pleadings. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In their amended complaint, Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epsteinn and Financial Trust Company, Inc. ("Fr) (collectively "plain- tiffs") allege that Citibank, N.A. ("Citi- bank") and Citigroup, Inc. ("Citigroup"I [collectively "defendants"] misrepre

itch book" referenced in the amended complaint is the document that plaintiffs rely on is a disputed fact that precludes a Rule 12(bX6) dismissal. Financial Trust Co., 268 F.Supp.2d at 572. Nothing in any of the briefs have convinced me that the parties do not dispute which pitch book Epstein received, what disc

ed to meet Federal Rule of Civil Proce- dure 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard. I did, however, grant the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint Financial Trust Co.' Citibank, 268 F.Supp.2d 661 (D.Vir- gin Islands 2003). H. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) (1-31 In order to state a viable

ly prevail in a trial on the merits, but whether they should be afforded an opportunity to offer evidence in support of their claims." Id. (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)). The defendants raise several arguments

On November 27, 2002, I issued an order restraining Citibank and Citigroup from pursuing their New York lawsuit pending decisions on these motions. Financial Trust Co., Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., Order, Civ. No. 2002-108 (D.V.I. Nov. 27, 2002). In light of subsequent events, however, I sua sponte vacated this prohibition.

73, 879-80 (3d Cir. 1995). Considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding this case, I make the following findings. First, Epstein and Financial Trust have selected this forum, and they are residents of the Virgin Islands with strong ties to this community. Epstein owns a seventy-acre island, and

ely prevail in a trial on the merits, but whether they should be afforded an opportunity to offer evidence in support of their claims." Id. (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 7

d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir.1995). Considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding this case, I make the following findings. First, Epstein and Financial Trust have selected this forum, and they are residents of the Virgin Islands with strong ties to this community. Epstein owns a seventy-acre island, and h

ely prevail in a trial on the merits, but whether they should be afforded an opportunity to otter evidence in support of their claims." Id. (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Harlow v. Fitzgerald. 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 7

d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir.1995). Considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding this case, I make the following findings. First, Epstein and Financial Trust have selected this forum, and they are residents of the Virgin Islands with strong ties to this community. Epstein owns a seventy-acre island, and h