Epstein Secrets

1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulat

11-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 11 of 21 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 11 the standard of pleading as established in Twombly, supra, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the requisite elements of a §2255 claim, thus requiring dismissal; for failure to state a cause

zable right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (198.9) (" R

fliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon the person of another"). See 3A Fla.Jur.2d Assault §1. With the standard of pleading established in Twombly supra, in the context of the elements for assault and battery, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6

ed on FLSD Docket 10/14/2008 Page 6 of 9 Case No. CV-80993-Hurley/Hopkins Page No. 6 a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Twombly, supra. Plaintiff is required to allege the facts of what EPSTEIN said and did, if anything, to create fear and apprehension of imminent peril in P

able right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Ru

0232-Marra-Johnson Page No. 9 FLSD Docket 10/C )8 Page 9 of 10 Conclusion As discussed above herein, under the pleading standard established in Twombly, supra, and law concerning the elements of Count I and III, Plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Pl

favorable to the plaintiff. DeKalb Count Sch. Dist. 446 F.3d 1153, 1156 (11th Cir.2006). Significantly, the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp.,. Twombly abrogated the often cited observation that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that th

it 41 Entered a,. .-LSD Docket 10,..../2008 Page 4 of 10 Case No. CV-80232-Marra-Johnson Page No. 4 doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewiczt. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (200 ; Neitzli. Williams 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) Rule 12(

8-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 11 of 21 . v. Epstein, et al. 1111 the standard of pleading as established in Twombly, supra, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the requisite elements of a §2255 claim, thus requiring dismissal; for failure to state a cause

1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (111h Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulat

cv-80811-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2009 Page 4 of 7 . v. Epstein, et al. age 4 doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506. 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992. 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827. 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Ru

§1. With the standard of pleading established in Twombly, supra, in the context of the elements for assau

if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.E

06/2008 Page 9 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 9 Conclusion As discussed above herein, under the pleading standard established in Twombly, supra, and law concerning the elements of Count I and III, Plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Pl

able right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Ru

06/2008 Page 9 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 9 Conclusion As discussed above herein, under the pleading standard established in Twombly, supra, and law concerning the elements of Count I and III, Plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Pl

able right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Ru