Epstein Secrets

stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit

elements of equitable estoppel since they are not relying upon the terms of the written agreement in asserting their claims. D.E. 416 at 57, citing MS Dealer Service Corp. v. Franklin 177 F.3d 942, 947 (11'h Cir. 1999). They maintain that their claims in this litigation are not based on the NPA, but the CVRA. This arg

stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit

elements of equitable estoppel since they are not relying upon the terms of the written agreement in asserting their claims. D.E. 416 at 57, citing MS Dealer Service Corp. v. Franklin 177 F.3d 942, 947 (11th Cir. 1999). They maintain that their claims in this litigation are not based on the NPA, but the CVRA. This arg

position would create the perception that either the earlier or later court was misled." DE 401-2 at 25 (emphasis added) (citing Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013)). In this case, even treating the state court proceedings as the "earlier" proceedings, the Government does n

itable estoppel precludes challenging a document only where that party "must rely on the terms of the written agreement in asserting [her] claims." MS Dealer Service Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942, 947 (11th Cir. 1999). Here, of course, the victims need not rely on the terms of the Government's non-prosecution agreem