Epstein Secrets

ce in its entirety is probative of the issues which will be raised in the Motion to Dismiss, including whether the statute of limitations has run on Jane Doe's claim, whether the Court in the Jane Doe Matter has personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and whether the Motion to Dismiss should be granted

Court Should Modify the Protective Order I I CONCLUSION 15 CONFIDENTIAL - FILED UNDER SEAL EFTA00805390 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Abarca v. Little, 54 F. Supp. 3d 1064 (D. Minn. 2014) 4 Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 287 F.R.D. 130 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) 11, 1

") (collectively "Defendants") submit this memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") filed by plaintiff Jane Doe ("Plaintiff') pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and (6). The FAC represents the Plaintiff's second unsuccessful bite at the apple. On January 26,

menced until January 27, 2017, more than four years after any of the events alleged in the FAC occurred. Plaintiff's claim is therefore time-barred. Abarca v. Little, 54 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1068 (Minn. 2014). As the Court stated in Abarca, a claim under Section 1595 had a four-year of statute of limitation

017 Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Re: Jane Doe 43 v. Jeffery Epstein, et al. Civil Action No. 17-cv-616 Dear Brad: In accordance with the procedures directed by the Court at the initial case ma

until January 27, 2017, more than four years after any of the events alleged in the Complaint occurred. Plaintiff's claim is therefore time-barred. Abarca v. Little, 54 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1068 (Minn. 2014). As the Court stated in Abarca, a claim under Section 1595 had a four-year of statute of limitation