Epstein Secrets

intiffs' pleading, the First Amended Complaint does not provide any reference to the statutory underpinnings for the subject matter jurisdiction of the Superior Court, 4 V.I.C.§ 76, nor should it be Defendant's responsibility to select Plaintiffs' best weapon in this regard for any response. Subject matter jurisdi

EFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO INQUIRY In their First Amended Complaint, it is alleged "[i]n 2005, Epstein engaged the architectural and design services of Juan Pablo Molyneux and J.P. Molyneux Studio, Ltd. ("Molyneux") to design a large-scale, multi-structure, multi-million dollar residential project to be constructed on

f among the existing parties." 7 Superior Court Rule 7 states that "the practice and procedure in the Superior Court shall be governed by Rules of the Superior Court and, to the extent not inconsistent therewith, by the Rules of the District Cowl, the Ocderal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Crimina

16, 2011 Order followi g its Memorandum Opinion, the Court intended to order the Plaintiffs to add J.P. Molyneux S dio, Ltd. to the action and not Juan Pablo Molyneux individually. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Court will give a brief recitation of the facts and procedural history that are re evant to th

. ST-10-O4443 4. The undersigned counsel's office has either an office employee or an independent courier check the Hodge & Francois "mailbox- at the Superior Court at least once a day, and as of May 26, 2011 the undersigned counsel had not received any Orders or the Memorandum Opinion from the Court that the d

rder entered on May 24, 20112, there exists a confidential settlement agreement and release (the "Confidential Agreement") by and among Plaintiffs, Juan Pablo Molyneux and J. P. Molyneux Studio, Ltd. which prohibits Plaintiffs from revealing any facts about the Confidential Agreement or its terms without first giv

filed in violation of LRCi 7.1 and should therefore be rejected by this Court and stricken from the record. Since there is no electronic filing in the Superior Court, the undersigned can only be guided by the date on the pleading's certificate of service as to when the motion was filed with the Court. Defendant'

y shows that the primary, if not sole purpose of the Amended Reply is to attempt to refute, with the use of 7 additional exhibits, the Affidavit of Juan Pablo Molyneux that Plaintiffs filed in support of their Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. As all of the arguments and materials used in the Amended Re