Epstein Secrets

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

ated in any way with M, asserting instead that Epstein merely "had contacts at M." FAC ¶ 60. Such bare allegations are insufficient. Ashland Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 652 F.3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Es

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

the ability "to have Plaintiff admitted to' For example, the Complaint fails to allege that Epstein was associated in any way wit Ashland Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 652 F.3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Est

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

bility "to have Plaintiff admitted to" . For example, the Complaint fails to allege that Epstein was associated in any way with . Ashland Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 652 F.3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Est