Epstein Secrets

due by 5/29/2009), MOTION to identify jane doe #102 in the third-party subpoenas for purposes of discovery, with incorporated memorandum of law by Jeffrey Epstein.(see docket entry 5 for image) (tas) (Entered: 05/12/2009) https://eef.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.p17825839498761356-L_801 0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA001

09-80656-CIV-Ryskamp JANE DOE No. 102, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AND EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE #102 IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE #102 IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOS

erve so Epstein can defend this case. In support, Mr. Epstein states as follows: EFTA00175214 • Case 9:09-c

10/03/2008 4 r 82.8 KB ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE Executed as to 2 Summons Issued, 1 Complaint Acknowledgement filed by Jane Doe No. 7. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/03/2008) 10/03/2008 5 fi 26.1 Ica NOTICE of Striking 4 Acknowledgment of Service filed by Jane Doe No. 7 by Jane Doe No. 7 (Her

175301 CM/Eg - Live Database - flsd Page 4 of 7 05/20/2009 18 n NOTICE by of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Defendant, Jeey Epstein's Motion to Compel And/Or Identify in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify . in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, Or, Altern

7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO

cited by Defendant EPSTEIN do not support a decision by this Court to abstain over what is a purely federal claim. In American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (11th Cir. 1990), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because there had been an earlier cl

uly 10, 2008, in the in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit In and For Palm Beach County, State of Florida, Case No. 50 2008CA020614 MBAF, Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein. and Sarah Kellen, based on the same factual allegations that she asserts in the instant case. Attached here to as Exhibit A is Plaintiff's First Am

T COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80469 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his

et, Defendant gives notice to the Court that issues pertaining to 18 U.S.C. §2255 in this motion to dismiss are also raised in the case of C.M.A. v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON, in Defendant's Motion to Dismiss directed to Plaintiff C.M.A.'s Amended Complaint, Plaintiff C.M.A.'s Response, and

I, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, AND S

69 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION

sdiction. Id.' Because concurrent jurisdiction exists over this federal claim, the six factor analysis as discussed in American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882, 884 (11th Cir. 1990), applies in determining whether the exceptional circumstances exist requiring dismissal of the federal action i

cument 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EP

IN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, through counsel, opposes Defendant's RICHARD EPSTEIN's Motion to Dismiss. Defendant's argument for a di

FF'S AMENDED' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, thro

ISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469

cited by Defendant EPSTEIN do not support a decision by this Court to abstain over what is a purely federal claim. In American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (111" Cir. 1990), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because there had been an earlier c

9-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. ORDER AND OPINION THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (DE 13), filed May 6, 2009. The motion is now fully briefed and ripe for review. The Court has carefully re

Complaint, are as follows: During the events giving rise to this claim, Plaintiff was a minor but has now reached majority. Compl. ¶ 4. Defendant Epstein has a history of enticing young women, who are minors, and soliciting them to engage in prostitution for his own sexual gratification. Compl. 8. Eps

minor but has now reached majority. Compl. ¶ 4. Defendant Epstein has a history of enticing young women, who are m

-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. ORDER AND OPINION THIS

circumstances exist requiring dismissal of the federal action in favor of the first filed state action. See American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (11th Cir. 1990). The exceptional circumstances test is set forth in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr., 460 U.S. 1 (198