Epstein Secrets

Docket 02/23/2015 Page 25 of 25 SERVICE LIST Jane Does I and 2 United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the

by her. Another case rejecting an attempt by proposed new plaintiffs to join an existing lawsuit, after the statute of limitations had expired, is Asher'. Unarco Material Handling, Inc. 596 F.3d 313 (6th Cir. 2010). The original plaintiffs were allegedly injured by carbon monoxide gas at a Wal-Mart

finding that "they attempted to circumvent the statute of limitations, adding new parties and new claims." Id. at 319. The proposed plaintiffs in Asher made the same argument as petitioners in this case, that the defendant had notice of their claims because they were aware of the original plaintiffs

ing CM/ECF. 21 EFTA00210617 SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 I. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, 4.74 Ninrih A tin* c AN / Paul G. Cassell Quinney Col

by her. Another case rejecting an attempt by proposed new plaintiffs to join an existing lawsuit, after the statute of limitations had expired, is Asher. Unarco Material Handling, Inc. 596 F.3d 313 (6th Cir. 2010). The original plaintiffs were allegedly injured by carbon monoxide gas at a Wal-Mart D

finding that "they attempted to circumvent the statute of limitations, adding new parties and new claims." Id. at 319. The proposed plaintiffs in Asher made the same argument as petitioners in this case, that the defendant had notice of their claims because they were aware of the original plaintiffs

erk of the Court using CM/ECF. SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 I. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. Paul G. Cassell 20 EFTA00210639 C! tin" 1- • A

ment, finding that "they attempted to circumvent the statute of limitations, adding new parties and new claims." Id. at 319. The new plaintiffs in Asher made the same argument as petitioners in this case, that the defendant had notice of their claims because they were aware of the original plaintiffs