Epstein Secrets

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly : situated, Plaintiffs, -against- THE FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, XYZ CORPORATION, ABC, INC., and JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendants. X Index No. 1:18-cv-07580-JPO DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT TROUTMAN S

E (S) -i- EFTA00802453 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES EFTA00802454 Defendants The Financial Trust Company ("F=") and Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein," and together with FTC, the "Defendants") respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Marvin Gerbe

knew, since at least 1997, about Hoffenberg and Defendant Epstein's alleged misconduct. This is when, according to

s for Defendants The Financial Trust Company and Jeffrey E. Epstein EFTA00802452 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

s for Defendants The Financial Trust Company and Jeffrey E. Epstein EFTA00802452 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE (

Honor is familiar with, Mr. Jeffrey Epstein ... Mr. Epstein, I'm told, and Mr. Kramer may want to address th

nts that were fraudulent, i.e., the first element, the court cannot "draw the reasonable inference" that Epstein made any fraudulent statements. See Jabal, 556 U.S. at 663. Plaintiffs also fail to adequately plead the fourth element: reliance. Although the Complaint alleges in formulaic and conclusory

Y EPSTEIN RALD LEFCO r RT ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFR Y EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EP

in the woe position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted al trial. No more; no less. From

hearing shall be limited to the issue of whether Defendant Epstein's defense of the civil actions filed against him

of Breach USAO No. 2006R0 181 June 9, 2009 To Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney Robert

TATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: Dated: Dated: A. MARIE VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN RALD LEFCO r RT ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFR Y EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011815 EFTA00192861 By signing this Addendum, Epstein assert

ng in illicit activities with Plaintiff) or that his travel was specifically "designed to bring about such a result." Mortenson, 322 U.S. at 374. As Jabal and Twombly make clear, plaintiffs cannot withstand a motion to dismiss by baldy asserting that an offense occurred and holding out hope that they

2'2009 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant's, Epstein. Motion To Dismiss, For More Definite Statement & To Strike Directed To Plaintiff Jane Doe's Amended Complaint,

Plaintiff. . .was called on the telephone by. . .Epstein and other employees. . ., and transported to. . .

Florida Civil Rico action is, at this time, only defendant Epstein. . . ." However, the RICO enterprise must be dis

.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant's, Epstein. Moti

usory and legal assertions in the Amended Complaint and the Rico Statement that attempt to track statutory language and assert bare conclusions. As Jabal and Twomblv make clear, Plaintiff cannot withstand a motion to dismiss by baldy asserting that an offense occurred and holding out hope that she "mi

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

rls for the purpose of coercing them into acts of prostitution." 18 U.S.C. § 2242(b). These bald allegations cannot survive a motion to dismiss. See Jabal, slip op. at 14 ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."); Twombly, 55

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

rls for the purpose of coercing them into acts of prostitution." 18 U.S.C. § 2242(b). These bald allegations cannot survive a motion to dismiss. See Jabal, slip op. at 14 ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."); Twombly, 55

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

rls for the purpose of coercing them into acts of prostitution." 18 U.S.C. § 2242(b). These bald allegations cannot survive a motion to dismiss. See Jabal, slip op. at 14 ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."); Twombly, 55

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

rls for the purpose of coercing them into acts of prostitution." 18 U.S.C. § 2242(b). These bald allegations cannot survive a motion to dismiss. See Jabal, slip op. at 14 ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."); Twombly, 55

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

rls for the purpose of coercing them into acts of prostitution." 18 U.S.C. § 2242(b). These bald allegations cannot survive a motion to dismiss. See Jabal, slip op. at 14 ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."); Twombly, 55