Epstein Secrets

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 16-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2008 Page 2 of 4 : tiP • ' CASE PIO ±-122OO.1.:IFO-51/4 541sXXX CF V. JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Z41 'FP ^i ria4 Y tr..mr.y..PRzia"rtnivz•zrt : . • . 7 'Crt. Rep. lun,L__ Date : • -17 vcri J „Asir )----=-- • / PD e--P:9fot Pres, D

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. Factual Allegations 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to billionaires. He is hims

, represented by Assistant United States , and Mr. Epstein, entered into a deferred- prosecution agreement (

' CASE PIO ±-122OO.1.:IFO-51/4 541sXXX CF V. JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Z41 'FP ^i ria4 Y tr..mr.y..PRzia"r

ach, Florida 33401 Tel. 561 659 8300 Fax. 561 835 8691 By: Jack A. Goldberger Fla. Bar No. 262013 jgoldberger®agwpa.com Attorneys for Defendant Jay Epstein CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 711.A.3 While defense counsel admittedly did not confer with plaintiffs' counsel prior to filing the moti

l distress based on the same factual allegations. Defendant Epstein has moved to dismiss only Count I of the Complai

' CASE PIO ±-122OO.1.:IFO-51/4 541sXXX CF V. JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Z41 'FP ^i ria4 Y tr..mr.y..PRzia"rt

able right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Ru

ket 06/05/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. Y EPSTEIN and Defendants. PLAINTIFF, M.'S, CONDITIONAL NOTICE OF INTENT TO EXCLUSIVELY RELY ON STATUTORY DAMAGES PROVIDED BY 18 U.S.C. 42255 Plaintiff, ,

Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel, files his reply to Plaintiffs Memorandum in Response to 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, And Sup

tion either under statutory or common law against Defendant EPSTEIN. Count I fails to plead any requisite elements o

tion to recover money damages against Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for acts of sexual abuse and prostitutio

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

cv-80811-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2009 Page 4 of 7 . v. Epstein, et al. age 4 doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506. 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992. 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827. 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Ru

lsd Page 1 of 15 LRJ U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Doe No. 3 v. Epstein Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Lead case: 2:flasaAhd Member case: (View Member Case) Case: 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Perso

file this document. (Is) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/20/2009 2.$ NOTICE by C.M.A. of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Compel And/Or Identify C.M.A. in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify C.M.A. in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery,

3/11/2008) 05/22/2008 4 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Jeffrey Epstein on May 7, 2008, filed by Jane Doe No. 3. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/22/2008) 05/29/2008 5 Plaintiffs MOTION for Entry of Default by Clerk Against Defendant by Jane Doe No. 3. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibi

plicable statute of limitations. WHEREFORE Defendant requests that this Court deny the re ' f sought by Plaintiff. Robert D. C itton, Jr. Attorney f. Defendant Epstein Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also

it 41 Entered a,. .-LSD Docket 10,..../2008 Page 4 of 10 Case No. CV-80232-Marra-Johnson Page No. 4 doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewiczt. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (200 ; Neitzli. Williams 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) Rule 12(

03/12/2009 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. EPSTEIN and Defendants, DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, AND MOTION FOR MORE

ATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. EPSTEIN and Defendants, 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, AND SU

adopted." Id. Plaintiffs position would subject Defendant EPSTEIN to a punishment that is not clearly prescribed —

aintiff, v. EPSTEIN and Defendants, DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLA

zable right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (198.9) (" R

/2008 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-Hurley-Hopkins JANE DOE NO. 7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO.7'S COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFER

CT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-Hurley-Hopkins JANE DOE NO. 7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO.7'S COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, by and through his un

7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMEN

3-Hurley-Hopkins JANE DOE NO. 7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION

able right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Ru

O PLAINTIFF JANE DOE N0.6'S COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves t

/515-3148 Fax ( Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)

!h day of October, 2008: Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 1

if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.E

/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S. EPSTEIN, MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, J

COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S. EPSTEIN, MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, by and through his

19-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S. EPSTEIN, MOTIO

able right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Ru