Epstein Secrets

Court explained just last Term, "we have not . . . applied Gibbs' expansive interpretive approach to other aspects of the jurisdictional statutes." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 545 U.S. 546, 553, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005) (applying 28 U.S.C. § 1367, enacted in 1990, to allow a federal

TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defen

Court explained just last Term, "we have not . . . applied Gibbs' expansive interpretive approach to other aspects of the jurisdictional statutes." Exxon Mobil Corp. I. Allapattah Servs., 545 U.S. 546, 553, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005) (applying 28 U.S.C. § 1367, enacted in 1990, to allow a federal

TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defen

include joinder or intervention of additional parties." Thus, section 1367(a) provides for pen- dent-party jurisdiction in federal question cases. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services. Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 558, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005) ("[tlhe last sentence of 1367(a) makes it clear that the

affirm the judgment of the District Court. John DOE # 1; Kelly Doe # 1, Parents of Jane Doe # 1, Individually and as Guardians on behalf of Minor Jane Doe # 1; John Doe # 2; Kelly Doe # 2, Parents of Jane Doe # 2, as Guardians on behalf of Minor Jane Doe # 2 I William Lawson CHAMBERLIN, Jr.; Kathr