Epstein Secrets

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN and L.S.J., LLC., ) CIVIL NO. ST-10-CV-443 Plaintiffs, ) ) ) v. ) ACTION FOR DAMAGES ) FANCELLI PANELING, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORAN

The Court will give a brief recitation of the facts and procedural history that are re evant to this Motion for Reconsideration? In 2005, Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein contracted with J.P. Molyneux Studio, Ltd. to de *gn a residential project on Little St. James. In its Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs attached as

of the proposal document, directions were given "to make your check payable J.P. Molyneux Studio, Ltd." Soon after entering into the agreement with Epstein, Mol eux contracted with Fancelli Paneling to install furniture and other paneling in the residence's I brary cabinetry. Upon discovering various d

(W.D. Pa. 1990). " Southeastern Sheet Metal Joint Apprenticeship Training Fund v. Barsuli, 950 F. Supp. 1406, 1414 (E. Wis. 1997). EFTA00306392 Jetty Epstein and L.S.J., LLC. v. Fancelli Paneling Inc. Civil No. ST-10-CV-443 Memorandum Opinion Page 3 of 5 occasions. In this action for breach of contract

GIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN and L.S.J., LLC., ) CIVIL NO. ST-10-CV-4

, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence." ° Bostic v. AT&T ophe V.I., 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004). 9 Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). 1° F & M Distributors, Inc. v. American Hardware Supply Co., 129 F.R.D. 494 (W.D. Pa. 1990). " Sout

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) NO. ST-10-CV-443 ) FANCELLI PANELING, INC., ) ) (CARROLL, J.) Defendant. ) OPPOSITION TO MOTION

ourt held that: EFTA00308324 ii Ii iI In the Factual and Procedural Background section of the Memorandum Opinion, the Court noted that in 2005 Epstein contracted with non-parties — "J.P. Molyneux Studio, Ltd., and Juan Pablo Molyneux (collectively, "Molyneux")" — to design a residential project on

rt of the Virgin Islands, bearing the Case No. 3:10-cv-00034, captioned 4 EFTA00308327 J.P.Molyneux Studio, Ltd. and Juan Pablo Molyneux against Jeffrey Epstein and L.S.J. LLC. (the "Molyneux Action'), in which Molyncux alleges: [s]ubsequent to the execution of the Design Services Agreement, Plaintiffs, wi

IRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v.

. The Third Circuit favors two purposes for reconsideration, " . to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985) Here, Plaintiffs specify the ground of "manifest injustice," without providing the standard for comp

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

8). r26] (HN26) The purpose of a motion for reconsideration "is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Such motions are not substitutes for appeals, and are not to be used as "a vehicle for registering