Epstein Secrets

ated in any way with M, asserting instead that Epstein merely "had contacts at M." FAC ¶ 60. Such bare allegations are insufficient. Ashland Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 652 F.3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Es

ge Other Predicate Acts 16 C. The FAC Fails to Meet the Twombly/Igbal Standard 18 D. The Claim Is Barred by the Statute of Limitations 19 E. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Defendants 21 F. Venue Is Improperly Laid in the Southern District of New York 22 CONCLUSION 22 EFTA00307097 Defendants Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and

the ability "to have Plaintiff admitted to' For example, the Complaint fails to allege that Epstein was associated in any way wit Ashland Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 652 F.3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Est

f the specific factual allegations necessary to establish what Epstein or=actually did during that limitations period to violate the statute. III. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Defendants The Complaint alleges without elaboration that Defendants are residents of New York. Cplt. ¶ ¶ 4, 8. However, the Complaint alleges no facts to

bility "to have Plaintiff admitted to" . For example, the Complaint fails to allege that Epstein was associated in any way with . Ashland Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 652 F.3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Est

cifying what Epstein or actually did to violate the statute. Doc. # DC-10084480 v.8 EFTA00298463 Brad Edwards, Esq. May , 2017 Page 10 III. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Defendants The Complaint alleges without elaboration that Defendants are residents of New York. Cplt. II 4, 8. However, the Complaint alleges no facts to supp