Epstein Secrets

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND St JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN and L.S.J., LLC, Plaintiffs, FANCELLI PANELING, INC., Defendant. CASE NO. ST-10-CV-443 ACTION FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MEMORANDUM IN SU

Fancelli for breach cn EFTA00307562 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER ENTERED MAY 24, 2011 Epstein etab vs. Fanelli Paneling, Inc. Super. Cs Case No. ST-10-CV-443 of contract and negligence because the Library Cabinetry is defective and installat

RGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND St JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN and L.S.J., LLC, Plaintiffs, FANCELLI P

(MI Sept 15, 1986). 5 EFTA00307566 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER ENTERED MAY 24, 2011 Epstein el at vs Fencelli Paneling, Inc. Super. Ct. Case Na ST-ID-CV-443 Defendant offered no evidence that localizing any discovery request in the event of n

consideration is the appropriate means of bringing to the court's attention manifest errors of fact or law." Max's Seafood Cara by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 648 (3d Cir. 1999). The purpose of such motions is to allow the Court to correct errors, sparing parties and appellate courts the bur

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF St THOMAS AND ST. JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN and L.S.J., LLC, Plaintiffs, -vs- FANCELLI PANELING, INC., Defendant. CASE NO. ST-10-CV-443 ACTION FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED cr1 0 0 •

TRIAL DEMANDED cr1 0 0 • ist -:j • z MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ENTERED MAY 24. 2011 Plaintiffs Jeffrey Epstein and L.S.J., LLC (collectively "Plaintiffs") submit this memorandum in support of their motion for reconsideration of this Court's Order entered on

lumns, and wood paneling for the Library in the Office Pavilion (the EFTA00307578 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Epstein et at vs. Fancelli Paneling, Inc. Case No. ST-I 0-CV443 "Library Cabinetry"). As third party beneficiaries of that contract with Fancelli, Plaintif

RGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF St THOMAS AND ST. JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN and L.S.J., LLC, Plaintiffs, -vs- FANCE

consideration is the appropriate means of bringing to the court's attention manifest errors of fact or law." Max's Seafood Café by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 648 (3d Cir. 1999). The purpose of such motions is to allow the Court to correct errors, sparing parties and appellate courts the bur

Source Document(s) 1 Source Document(s) IN RE: JEFFREY J. PROSSER, Debtor. NORTH SHORE REAL ESTATE CORP

ptcy court's denial of an appellant's motion for reconsideration is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. See generally Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 673 (3d Cir. 1999). "However, to the extent that the denial of reconsideration is predicated on an issue of law, such an award is rev