Epstein Secrets

give rise to the "strong inference of fraudulent intent" required to plead a fraud claim in satisfaction of Rule 9(b). Wood, 328 Fed.Appx. at 747; O'Brien, 936 F.2d at 676. The allegation that Epstein had no intention of following through on his alleged promises to assist Plaintiff in gaining admissio

ge Other Predicate Acts 16 C. The FAC Fails to Meet the Twombly/Igbal Standard 18 D. The Claim Is Barred by the Statute of Limitations 19 E. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Defendants 21 F. Venue Is Improperly Laid in the Southern District of New York 22 CONCLUSION 22 EFTA00307097 Defendants Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and

a factual basis, let alone an "ample factual basis," that would give rise to a "strong inference of fraudulent intent." Wood, 328 Fed.Appx. at 747; O'Brien, 936 F.2d at 676. The allegation that Epstein had no intention of following through on his alleged promises to assist Plaintiff in gaining admission

f the specific factual allegations necessary to establish what Epstein or=actually did during that limitations period to violate the statute. III. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Defendants The Complaint alleges without elaboration that Defendants are residents of New York. Cplt. ¶ ¶ 4, 8. However, the Complaint alleges no facts to

a factual basis, let alone a "ample factual basis," that would give rise to a "strong inference of fraudulent intent." Wood, 328 Fed.Appx. at 747; O'Brien, 936 F.2d at 676. The allegation that Epstein had no intention of following through on his alleged promises to assist Plaintiff in gaining admission

cifying what Epstein or actually did to violate the statute. Doc. # DC-10084480 v.8 EFTA00298463 Brad Edwards, Esq. May , 2017 Page 10 III. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Defendants The Complaint alleges without elaboration that Defendants are residents of New York. Cplt. II 4, 8. However, the Complaint alleges no facts to supp