Epstein Secrets

to Mr. Jean Pierre Fancelli. 5 In addition, Defendant specifically informed Plaintiffs' counsel, Darren lndyke, that because of limitations with Mr. Fancelli's ability to communicate in English, Mr. lndyke should communicate with Mr. Fancelli through Mr. Barthod . Pl. Ex. 3 Thus, Mr. Barthod has been pre

Ex. 4. In support of its argument for insufficient service of process, Defendant asserts that the ...Summons and Complaint (sic) were delivered to Fancelli's office in New York on or about November 29, 2010 and left at that location with an unauthorized employee of Fancelli Paneling, Inc." However, Mr.

eates a duty in the promisor to any intended beneficiary to perform the promise, and the intended beneficiary may enforce the duty." KMART Corp. is Balfour Beatty, ha, 994 F.Supp. 634, 636 (D.V.I. 1998) (quoting Restatement (Second) q/' Contracts § 304). A third party beneficiary is an exception to the privit

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

and in place of the contracting party, Molyneux, to enforce their rights under the contract. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 304; KMART Corp. v. Balfour Beatty, Inc., 994 F.Supp. 634, 637 (D.V.1. 1998). Molyneux is not a necessary party because Plaintiffs stand in Molyneux's place and by reason of the Conf

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

nd in place of the contracting party, Molyneux, to enforce their rights under the contract. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 304; XMART Corp. v. Balfour Beatty, Inc., 994 F.Supp. 634, 637 a. 1998). Molyneux is not a necessary party because Plaintiffs stand in Molyneux's place and by reason of the Confident