Epstein Secrets

21 LRJ, MEDREQ, REF_DISCOV U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80119-1CAM Doe v. Epstein Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson Member case: (View Member Case) Case: 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Caus

ON Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No- Contact Order Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Reply to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Response to Plaintiffi Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for a No-Contact Order filed by Jane Doe No. 101, Jane Doe No. 102. Associate

red: 02/08/2008) 05/22/2008 4 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Jeffrey Epstein on May 7, 2008, filed by Jane Doe. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/22/2008) 05/22/2008 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe. Jeffrey Epstein served on 5/7/2008, Answer due 5/27/2008. (Ik) (Entere

FTA00175604 CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 17 of 21 05/20/2009 Ma NOTICE be. of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raise Lions to Defendant. Jetey Epstein's Motion to Ag And/Or IdentifyMf. in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identi . in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, Or, Alternati

. 2 I JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S S

legations in her complaint, the plaintiff went to Mr. Epstein's house to give him "a massage for monetary comp

, ,2008 Page 9 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 9 Conclusion As discussed above herein, under the pleading standard established in Twomblv, supra, and law concerning the elements of Count I and III, Plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Pl

se - flsd Page 1 of 17 U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Doe No. 4'. Epstein Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson Lead case: 9:08-ev-80111-.KAM Member case• (View Member Case)

ON Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No- Contact Order Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Reply to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Response to Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for a No-Contact Order filed by Jane Doe No. 101, Jane Doe No. 102. Associate

4/21/2008) 05/22/2008 6 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Jeffrey Epstein on May 7, 2008, filed by Jane Doe No. 4. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/22/2008) 05/29/2008 7. Plaintiffs MOTION for Entry of Default by Clerk Against Defendant by Jane Doe No. 4. (Attachments: # 1 Exhib

. 4 1. Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE

rt her claim as set forth in the statute, 1a. §2422(b) and §2455. Conclusion As discussed above herein, under the pleading standard established in Twomblv, supra, and law concerning the elements of Count I and III, Plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Pl

The names of all of the victims are unknown to the plaintiff at this time. However, they include Jane Doe herself as well as the victim in E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein and L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein. A list of more than 30 such minor females has previously been provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern

stein. A list of more than 30 such minor females has previously been provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida to Epstein (but not to Jane Doe). See DE 38-2 at ¶ 4. Finally, Defendant argues, and Plaintiff concedes, that punitive damages are not available under 18 U.S

ICO statement that the "enterprise" consisted of Defendant Epstein, and his paid employees Sarah Kellen and Nadia Ma

. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before

the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not require

The names of all of the victims are unknown to the plaintiff at this time. However, they include Jane Doe herself as well as the victim in E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein and L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein. A list of more than 30 such minor females has previously been provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern

stein. A list of more than 30 such minor females has previously been provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida to Epstein (but not to Jane Doe). See DE 38-2 at ¶ 4. Finally, Defendant argues, and Plaintiff concedes, that punitive damages are not available under 18 U.S

ICO statement that the "enterprise" consisted of Defendant Epstein, and his paid employees and Sec Am. Comp. 1 43

. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before

the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not require