Epstein Secrets

of sexual exploitation and abuse. In the Jane Doe II state action, an Order was entered reassigning the state action to a Division in which other Jane Doe cases against EPSTEIN had been filed. See "Clerk's Notice Of Reassignment," dated April 10, 2009, and attached hereto as Exhibit B. The state court

resumption of concurrent jurisdiction. Id.' Because concurrent jurisdiction exists over this federal claim, the six factor analysis as discussed in American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882, 884 (11th Cir. 1990), applies in determining whether the exceptional circumstances exist requiring dismissal

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

claim under §2255. The cases cited by Defendant EPSTEIN do not support a decision by this Court to abstain over what is a purely federal claim. In American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (111" Cir. 1990), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because the

ould ultimately result in reversible error at any trial. II. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief 22. Epstein requests the following relief: a. That JANE DOE's Motion to Proceed Anonymously be denied; b. That this Court grant Epstein's Motion and that JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the style

claim under §2255. The cases cited by Defendant EPSTEIN do not support a decision by this Court to abstain over what is a purely federal claim. In American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (11th Cir. 1990), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because ther