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

tate a claim sounding in fraud, a plaintiff must plead, among other things, that she reasonably relied on the alleged misrepresentation. Crigger v. Fahnstock & Co., Inc., 443 F.3d 230, 234 (2d Cir. 2006). The FAC does not meet this basic requirement. Instead, the FAC merely states in conclusory terms that "Pla

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

tate a claim sounding in fraud, a plaintiff must plead, among other things, that she reasonably relied on the alleged misrepresentation. Crigger v. Fahnstock & Co., Inc., 443 F.3d 230, 234 (2d Cir. 2006). The Complaint does not meet this basic requirement. Instead, the Complaint merely states in conclusory ter

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

tate a claim sounding in fraud, a plaintiff must plead, among other things, that she reasonably relied on the alleged misrepresentation. Crigger v. Fahnstock & Co., Inc., 443 F.3d 230, 234 (2d Cir. 2006). The Doc. # DC-10084480 v.8 EFTA00298457 Brad Edwards, Esq. May , 2017 Page 4 Complaint does not meet