Epstein Secrets

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 25 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. Case No.: I5-cv-07433-RWS REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Laura A. Menninger HADDON,

INTRODUCTION ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PLAUSIBLY PLEAD DEFAMATION A. Plaintiff Failed to Adequately Plead a Defamation Claim 1 B. Ms. Maxwell's Statement In Context Is Not Defamatory 3 II. MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS ARE PROTECTED BY PRIVILEGE 6 A. Qualified Privilege May Form the Basis f

OR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. Case No.: I5-cv-07433-RWS

ed to Adequately Plead a Defamation Claim 1 B. Ms. Maxwell's Statement In Context Is Not Defamatory 3 II.

the malice question, the court noted that the truth of defendant's letter was irrelevant. Instead, the letter was privileged because it amounted 5 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. lqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). 6 Not surprisingly, Plaintiff does not cite to a single federal authority p

/15 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X PLAINTIFF, V. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, DEFENDANT. X 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Laura A. Menninger, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Ave

r CO 80203 Tel: Dated: November 30, 2015 EFTA00595583 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 15 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 29 Table of Contents I. MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS ARE PRIVILEGED 9 A. The Self-Defense Privilege Protects Ms. Maxwell's Statements 9 B. The Pre-Litigation Privilege Protects Ms. Maxw

attributed statement responds directly to allegations and claims made by Plaintiff. Compl. 1 31. Likewise to the extent the claimed statement that "Ghislaine Maxwell's original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same" (Compl. 1 32) refers to an earlier statement describing Plaintiff's "factual

led 12/01/15 Page 2 of 29 Table of Contents I. MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS ARE PRIVILEGED 9 A. The Self-Defen

.2d 467, 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 7 Armstrong v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 625 N.Y.S.2d 477 (1995) 7 Ashcroft v. lqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) 6 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) 7 Biro v. Conde Nast, 883 F.Supp.2d 441, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) 7, 12 Caplan v. Winslet, 218 A.D.2d 148, 153 (1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE 43, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AND Defendants. CASE NO. 17 Civ 616 (JGK) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS EFTA00307096 ARGUMENT 1 A. Allegatio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE 43, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AND Defendants. CASE NO. 17 Civ 616 (JGK) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS EFTA00307096 ARGUMENT 1 A. Allegations Regard

andards applicable to fraud based claims, it also fails to meet the more relaxed pleading standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Igbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). These two decisions set forth the basic requirements for pleading a

st, the allegations of coercion are unspecific and wholly conclusory, as exemplified by the allegations in paragraph 45 that "Defendants Epstein and Maxwell intimidated, threatened, humiliated and verbally abused Plaintiff in order to coerce her into sexual compliance. These Defendants threatened Plaint

andards applicable to fraud based claims, it also fails to meet the more relaxed pleading standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Igbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). These two decisions set forth the basic requirements for pleading a

ere she held citizenship and where her parents resided, Epstein and Doc. # DC-1008444ki v.8 EFTA00298459 Brad Edwards, Esq. May , 2017 Page 6 Maxwell told her that "she would not be permitted to return to the United States to receive her promised education unless she lost weight." Plaintiff does n

andards applicable to fraud based claims, it also fails to meet the more relaxed pleading standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Igbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). These two decisions set forth the basic requirements for pleading a