Epstein Secrets

A NO. 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. ORDER AND OPINION THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Cause of Action, and Motion for More Definite Statement; Motion to Strike (DE 47).

, 2009 by an Amended Complaint (DE 40). Plaintiff brings suit alleging Counts I-XXX - Cause of Action Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 against Defendant Epstein; Count XXXI - Sexual Battery against Defendant Epstein; and Count XXXII - Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault Against Defendant 1 EFTA00731326

se of Action Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 against Defendant Epstein; Count XXXI - Sexual Battery against Defendant E

NO. 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. ORDER AND OPINION THIS

eed under section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enu

elief, and the statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Bro

Docket 03/03;2010 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant")'s Motion to Dismiss, for More Definite Statement &

stein. A list of more than 30 such minor females has previously been provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida to Epstein (but not to Jane Doe). See DE 38-2 at ¶ 4. Finally, Defendant argues, and Plaintiff concedes, that punitive damages are not available under 18 U.S

ICO statement that the "enterprise" consisted of Defendant Epstein, and his paid employees and . See Am. Comp. ¶

. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before

elief, and the statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8)• see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007); Dura Phann., Inc. v. Broudo,

The names of all of the victims are unknown to the plaintiff at this time. However, they include Jane Doe herself as well as the victim in E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein and L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein. A list of more than 30 such minor females has previously been provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern

stein. A list of more than 30 such minor females has previously been provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida to Epstein (but not to Jane Doe). See DE 38-2 at ¶ 4. Finally, Defendant argues, and Plaintiff concedes, that punitive damages are not available under 18 U.S

ICO statement that the "enterprise" consisted of Defendant Epstein, and his paid employees Sarah Kellen and Nadia Ma

. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before

lief, and the statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo

The names of all of the victims are unknown to the plaintiff at this time. However, they include Jane Doe herself as well as the victim in E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein and L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein. A list of more than 30 such minor females has previously been provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern

stein. A list of more than 30 such minor females has previously been provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida to Epstein (but not to Jane Doe). See DE 38-2 at ¶ 4. Finally, Defendant argues, and Plaintiff concedes, that punitive damages are not available under 18 U.S

ICO statement that the "enterprise" consisted of Defendant Epstein, and his paid employees and Sec Am. Comp. 1 43

. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before

lief, and the statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. _______________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT THIS CAUSE is before the

ed as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if allegations of improper conduct were made. Id. This was an important element of Epstein’s plan. Id. Defendant’s plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Am. Compl. ¶ 11. Upon arrival at Defendant’s mansion, the underag

ENT THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (“Defendant”)’s Motion to Dismiss and Mo

relief, and the statement must “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 0