Epstein Secrets

al Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3 does not require an unequivocal finding of manifest injustice before the Court may alter or amend a prior order. See Bostic v. AT&T of the Virgin Islands, 45 V.I. 553, 312 F.Supp.2d 731 (D.C.V.I. 2004). "...[Rleconsideration is the appropriate means of bringing to the co

ideration Epstein et at vs. Fancelli Paneling, Inc. Case No. ST-I 0-CV443 "Library Cabinetry"). As third party beneficiaries of that contract with Fancelli, Plaintiffs filed suit against Fancelli for breach of contract and negligence because the Library Cabinetry is defective and its installation was i

against Fancelli for breach of contract and negligence because the Library Cabinetry is defective and its installation was improper and incomplete. Fancelli was served with the Summons and First Amended Complaint on December 3, 2010. On December 30, 2010, Plaintiffs and JP and Molyneux entered into a co

he just relief for all existing parties. A motion for reconsideration is not for raising matters that could have been raised before, but were not. Bostic v. AT&T of the Virgin Islands, 45 V.I. 553, 312 F. Stepp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.L 2004). 13 EFTA00308336 V. CONCLUSION Manifest injustice will resul

23 (1989). In ordering joinder, this Court has acknowledged that in Molyneux's absence such "complete relief" cannot be accorded the Plaintiffs and Fancelli. In seeking reconsideration, Plaintiffs, not only continue to misstate Rule 19(a)(1), erroneously holding that "[i]f this Court can grant Plaintiff

between Molyneux's filing of the federal action against Epstein April 10, 2010 and Epstein filing the instant action against Fancelli July 30, 2010. Fancelli's reaction and rights would have been part of each side's due diligence during their settlement negotiations. The resulting machinations of private

the Rules of the District Cowl, the Ocderal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence." ° Bostic v. AT&T ophe V.I., 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004). 9 Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). 1° F & M Distributors, In

racted with Fancelli Paneling to install furniture and other paneling in the residence's I brary cabinetry. Upon discovering various deficiencies in Fancelli's work, Plaintiffs, as third party I Plaintiffs Jeffrey Epstein and L.S.J., LLC are represented by Denise Francois, Esq. Defendant Fancelli P eling,

al Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3 does not require an unequivocal finding of manifest injustice before the Court may alter or amend a prior order. See Bostic v. AT&T of the Virgin Islands, 45 V.I. 553, 312 F.Supp.2d 731 M. 2004). "...[R]econsideration is the appropriate means of bringing to the court's

wood paneling for the library of the Office Pavilion (the "Library Cabinetry"). Under third party beneficiary status, Plaintiffs filed suit against Fancelli for breach cn EFTA00307562 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER ENTERED MAY 24, 2011 Epstein e